THE  WORLDS  BPoainmBm 

Edited  m  Qupmm  Smbaton. 


z::^ 


l\*t-:v.W  fAiRWEATHEK,  M  /^ 


\ 


Il.nllj.    '0 


^^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  *^t'h 


Purchased   by  the 
Mrs.    Robert    Lenox    Kennedy   Church    History    Fund. 


BR  1720  .07  F3  1901      ^ 
ort^r^^'^r-  William. 

the':i"ogr  °"''  ^"^^^^- 

Or 


'I: 


Previous  Volumes  in  this  Series  : — 

CRANMER  AND  THE   ENGLISH  REFORMATION. 
By  A.   D.  Innes,  M.A. 

WESLEY  AND   METHODISM. 

By  F.  J.  Snell,  M.A. 

LUTHER   AND   THE   GERMAN    REFORMATION. 
By  Prof.  T.  M.  Lindsay,  D.D. 

BUDDHA   AND   BUDDHISM. 

By  Arthur  Lillie,  M.A. 

WILLIAM    HERSCHEL   AND    HIS   WORK. 

By  J.\MES  SiME,  M.A.,  F.R.S.E. 

FRANCIS   AND    DOMINIC. 

By  Prof.  J.   Herkless,  D.D. 

SAVONAROLA. 

By  Rev.  G.  M 'Hardy,  D.D. 

ANSELM   AND   HIS  WORK. 

By  Rev.  A.  C.  Welch,  M.A.,  B.D. 

For  Complete  List  see  End. 


THE   WORLD'S   EPOCH-MAKERS 


Origen 


Greek  Patristic  Theology 


Rev.   William  Fairweather,   M.A. 


v/ 


New  York.  Charles  Scribner's  Sons 

1901 


"Vir  magnus  ab  infantia." 

Jerome. 

"  I  love  the  name  of  Origen." 

Newman. 

"Like  the  influence  of  Socrates  in 
Greek  philosophy,  so  the  influence  of 
Origen  in  Church  history  is  the  water- 
shed of  multitudes  of  diff^erent  streams 
of  thought."  Farrar. 


PREFATORY   NOTE 


This  volume  cannot  claim  to  be  written  in  the  popular 
style  adopted  in  some  other  volumes  of  the  series,  for 
the  simple  reason  that  the  subject  scarcely  admits  of 
being  popularised.  At  the  same  time  I  have  tried  to 
make  the  book  readable,  and  to  refrain  as  far  as 
possible  from  undue  technicalities  of  pliilosophical  and 
theological  language.  It  has  been  my  aim  to  avoid  on 
the  one  hand  the  Scylla  of  catering  for  a  public  which 
no  art  or  device  will  ever  induce  to  concern  itself 
about  Greek  Patristic  Theology,  and,  on  the  other,  the 
Charybdis  of  scholastic  pedantry.  Rightly  or  wrongly, 
I  am  convinced  that  my  task  will  be  most  usefully 
accomplished  by  furnishing  a  brief  introduction  to  the 
study  of  a  subject  on  which,  in  English  at  least,  there 
are  not  too  many  easily  accessible  helps.  In  view 
of  the  impossibility  of  assuming  any  very  intimate 
knowledge  of  Origen's  writings  on  the  part  of  the 
general  reader,  or  even  of  the  average  tlieological 
student,  I  have  further  deemed  it  best,  while  not 
refraining  from  criticism  where  it  seemed  called  for,  to 
aim  at  being  expository  rather  than  critical. 

In  no  sense  does  the  book  pretend  to  be  a  treatment 
of  the  third  century.  Any  attempt  to  deal  with  the 
Church  life  of  the  period  is  debarred  by  the  Hmits  of 


viii  PREFATORY  NOTE 

the  present  series.  Such  a  method  of  treatment  may 
sometimes  have  its  ad\antages,  but  it  necessarily 
thro\N's  into  tlie  background  the  personality  of  the 
individual.  In  the  following  pages  it  has  been  my 
endeavour  to  concentrate  attention  upon  the  life  and 
writings,  the  doctrine  and  influence,  of  the  great 
teacher  of  the  Greek  Church.  Chapter  I.  is  in- 
troductory, and  intended  to  lead  up  to  the  main  subject 
by  showing  to  what  extent  the  way  had  already  been 
prepared  for  Origen.  I  regret  that  considerations  of 
space  do  not  admit  of  prefixing  as  Prolegomena  a 
sketch  of  the  birthplace  and  background  of  the  Greek 
theology,  and  of  the  Apologists  of  the  second  century ; 
but  while  this  may  be  a  desideratum  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  scientific  student,  the  educated  layman  will 
probably  count  it  no  loss.  Chapters  XI. -XIV,  form,  so 
to  speak,  the  epilogue,  and  indicate  the  nature  and 
extent  of  Origen's  influence  upon  subsequent  theo- 
logical thought. 

I  have  deemed  it  advisable  to  devote  a  separate 
chapter  to  the  life  of  Origen,  instead  of  adopting  the 
perhaps  more  scientific,  but  immensely  more  com- 
plicated plan  of  weaving  in  the  biographical  details 
with  other  matter  in  strict  chronological  sequence. 
Although  in  a  monogram  upon  Origen  more  might,  no 
doubt,  be  made  of  this  aspect  of  the  subject,  I  venture 
to  hope  that  nothing  very  material  has  been  omitted ; 
but  in  any  case  it  seems  more  important  to  make  room 
for  some  adequate  account  of  the  writings  and  theology 
of  one  who  did  so  much  to  "  make  Christianity  a  part 
of  the  civilisation  of  the  world  "  than  to  tell  with 
fuller  detail  the  story  of  his  life. 

To  those  who  may  be  inclined  to  question  the  utility 


PREFATORY  NOTE  ix 

of  studying  tlie  writings  of  an  old-worltl  personage 
like  Origcn,  and  to  consider  him  as  of  little  significance 
for  those  living  in  the  twentieth  century,  it  may  be 
pointed  out  that  the  theme  discussed  seems  likely  to 
assume  growing  importance  in  relation  to  present-day 
problems  in  theology.  There  is  a  prevailing  disposition 
to  get  back  to  the  sources,  and  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten 
that  it  was  the  Greek  Fathers  who  laid  the  foundations 
of  theological  science.  An  American  author.  Professor 
A.  V.  G.  Allen,  in  the  Preface  to  a  work  the  title  of 
which  is  given  below,  says :  "  If  I  were  revising  my 
book  I  should  try  to  enforce  more  than  I  have  done  the 
importance  of  the  work  of  Origen.  He  was  a  true 
specimen  of  a  great  theologian,  the  study  of  whose  life 
is  of  special  value  to-day,  as  a  corrective  against  that 
tendency  to  underrate  dogma  in  our  reaction  from 
outgrown  dogmas,  or  the  disposition  to  treat  the  feel- 
ings and  instincts  of  our  nature  as  if  they  were  a  final 
refuge  from  the  reason,  instead  of  a  means  to  a  larger 
use  of  the  reason, — a  process  which,  it  is  to  be  feared, 
in  many  is  closely  allied  with  the  temper  which  leads 
men  to  seek  shelter  in  an  infallible  Church." 

In  view  of  subsequent  developments  of  theological 
thought,  within  the  Greek  Church  and  beyond  it,  it  is 
equally  important  to  note  that  while  Origen  valued 
dogma,  he  abjured  dogmatism.  He  refused  to  make 
man's  blessedness  conditional  upon  the  acceptance  of 
certain  shibboleths.  Although  speculative  to  the  verge 
of  audacity,  he  never  failed  to  distinguish  between  his 
own  opinions  and  the  rule  of  faith  as  contained  in 
Holy  Scripture.  If  he  himself  was  disposed  to  rate 
knowledge  too  highly,  at  all  events  he  did  not  confuse 
it  with  faith,  but  was  quite  explicit  in  his  declaration 


X  PREFATORY  NOTE 

that  the  word  of  God  is  tlie  sole  source  of  absolute 
certitude,  and  the  sole  repository  of  essential  truth.  It 
would  have  been  well  for  the  Greek  Church  if  she  had 
clung  to  this  position.  As  it  was,  she  did  not  properly 
discriminate  between  the  matter  of  revelation  and  the 
scientific  handling  of  it,  and  ultimately  succumbed 
under  the  incubus  of  a  dead  orthodoxy. 

It  only  remains  to  mention  the  principal  works 
consulted  in  the  preparation  of  this  volume.  Apart 
from  Origen's  own  writings,  I  have  derived  most  help 
from  Redepenning's  Origenes:  Eine  Darsiellung  seines 
Lehens  unci  seiner  Lehre,  2  vols.,  Bonn,  1841-46 ; 
Pressense's  Tlte  Early  Years  of  Christianity,  1879  ; 
Denis'  De  La  Fhilosophie  d'Origene,  Paris,  1884 ; 
Bigg's  The  Christian  Plaionists  of  Alexand ria,  188Q  ; 
Harnack's  History  of  Dogimi,  Eng.  tr.  1894-1899; 
and  the  Church  Histories  of  Mosheim,  Neander,  and 
Kurtz.  The  following  works  have  also  been  useful : 
Schnitzer,  Origenes  uherdie  Grundlehren  der  Glaubens- 
wissenschaft,  Stuttgart,  1835 ;  Hagenbach's  History 
of  Christian  Doctrines,  Eng.  tr.  184G;  Allen,  The 
Continuity  of  Christian  Thought,  1884;  Allin,  Race 
and  Religion,  1899;  and  the  articles  on  Origen  in 
Chambers's  Encyclopwdia,  Smith  and  Wince's  Dictionary 
of  Christian  Biograj)hy,  Smith's  Diet,  of  Greek  and 
Roman  Biography,  and  the  Encyclopadia  Britannica. 

The  translations  of  passages  quoted  from  the  writings 
of  Origen  are  mostly  taken  from  the  two  volumes 
published  in  The  Anie-Niccne  Christian  Library,  but 
sometimes  they  are  those  of  Bigg  or  Pressens^,  and  in 
a  few  instances  they  are  my  own. 

W.  FAIRWEATHER. 
KiUK(.ALDY,  Scjiicmbcr  1901. 


CONTENTS 


PREFATORY  Note 


PAGE 

vii 


CHAPTER  I 
Precuksop.s  of  Origen 

i.  The  Greek  Tlieology    ..... 

ii.  The  Catechetical  School  of  Alexandria 
iii.  Pantffinus  aud  Clemeut  .... 

iv.  Rights  and  Limits  of  Secular  Learning 

V.  Clement's  View  of  Holy  Scripture,   and  his  Distinction  o 

Exoteric  and  Esoteric  Doctrine     . 
vi.   Extant  AVritings  of  Clement :  their  Apologetic  Drift  . 
vii.  Clement's  Dogmatic     ..... 


1 

8 
12 
14 

17 
20 
26 


CHAPTER  II 
Life  axd  Character  of  Origen 

i.  Early  Years  in  Alexandria 

ii.  The  Persecution  under  Septimius  Severus 

iii.  Ascetic  and  Philosopher 

iv.  Literary  Labours  and  Foreign  Travels 

V.  Collision  with  Demetrius 

vi.  Life  at  Caesarea 

vii.  The  Persecution  under  Maximinus  Thrax 

viii.  Journeys  into  Greece  and  Arabia 

ix.  The  End  :  Beauty  of  Character 


35 
37 
41 
47 
50 
54 
57 
58 
02 


Xll 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  III 
Oeigen's  View  of  Holy  Scbiptuke 

i.  The  Question  of  Canonicity     . 

ii.   Insiiiratioii  and  Unity  of  the  Sacred  Writings 
iii.  The  Twofold  Object  of  Scripture 
iv.  The  Allegorical  Method  and  the  Threefold  Sense 

V.  Allegorism  in  relation  to  Apologetic  . 
vi.  Economy  or  the  Doctrine  of  Reserve  . 
vii.  Radical  Defect  of  Origen's  Position 


PAGE 

65 
67 

70 
73 
77 
81 
82 


CHAPTER  IV 
Religiovs  Philosophy  of  Origen 

i.  Relation  of  Christian  Doctrine  to  Greek  Philosophy  . 

ii.  Gnostic  and  Neoplatonic  Elements  in  Origen's  System 

iii.  Value  of  a  scientific  Conceiition  of  Christianity 

iv.  Origen's  Idealism  and  the  religious  Ideal 

V.  Origen's  Theory  of  Knowledge  and  its  Relation  to  Faith 

vi.  The  Deification  of  Humanity  .... 


84 
87 
89 
92 
94 
96 


CHAPTER  V 
The  Wkitings  of  Oiugen 

i.  Contributions  to  Textual  Criticism — the  Hcxajila 

ii.  Apologetic  Work  of  Oi'igen — the  Contra  Celsum 

iii.  Exegetical  Writings    .... 

iv.  Dogmatic  Works — the  Dc  Pnncijnis  . 

V.  Letters  and  Treatises  on  Practical  Relitrioii     . 


99 
105 
120 
125 
133 


CHAPTEE   VI 

Origen's  Theology  :  God  and  His  Self-Manifestations 

i.  The  Nature  of  God       .  .  .  .  .  .142 

ii.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity     .  .  .  .  .148 


CONTENTS 


xiu 


CHAPTER  VII 

Origen's  Theology  :  Ckeation  and  the  Fall 

PAGE 

i.  The  World  of  created  Spirits  aud  the  Conception  of  formal 

Freedom   .             .             .             .             .  •             .161 

ii.  The  Fall  and  the  Creation  of  the  Material  World  .             .     168 

iii.  The  Doctrine  of  Man  .             .             .             .  .             .171 


V' 


CHAPTER  VIII 
Okigen's  Theology  :  Redemptiox  and  Restoration 
The  Four  Revelations . 
The  Incarnation 
The  Sacrifice  of  Christ 
The  Soul's  Return  to  God 
The  Last  Things 


177 
180 

202 


CHAPTER  IX 

Successors  of  Origen 

i.  In  Alexandria — 

{a)  Presidents  of  the  Catechetical  School :  Heraclas, 
Dionysius,  Pierius,  Tlieognostus,  Peter  the  Martyr, 
Didymus,  and  Rhodon        .... 

{b)  Athanasius     ...... 

ii.  In  Asia — 

(«)  Friends  and  Correspondents  :  Theophilus  of  Coesarea, 
Alexander  of  Jerusalem,  Finnilian,  and  Julius 
Afrieanus     ...... 

(b)  Gregory  Thauniaturgus  .... 


214 
220 


224 
225 


CHAPTER  X 

Historical  Services,  General  Characteristics,  and  Distinctive 
Doctrinal  Complexion  of  the  Greek  Theology 

i.  Services  against  Gnosticism  and  Montanism  . 

ii.  Characteristics :  Allegorism,  the  Doctrine  of  Reserve,  lu- 
tellcctualism.  Catholicity,  Spirituality,  Humanitarian- 
ism,  Optimism     ...... 

iii.  Outline  of  the  Hellenistic  Position      .... 

iv.  The  Three  Main  Pillars  of  the  Greek  Theology 


228 


230 
233 
235 


xiv  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  XI 
Reaction  against  Origenism 

PAQE 

i.  Dissatisfaction  witli  Origen's  Doctrinal  Position         .             .  238 

ii.  The  Attack  of  Methodius         .....  240 

iii.  Defence  by  Pamiiliilus  and  Eusebius  ....  241 

iv.  Quarrels  among  the  Egyptian  Monks              .             .             .243 
V.  The  Controversy  in  Palestine,  Italy,  Alexandria,  and  Con- 
stantinople           ......  245 

vi.  Interference  of  the  Emperor  Justinian             ,             .             .  250 
'  vii.  Condemnation   of   Origen's  Tenets  by   the    Fifth    General 

Council  at  Constantiuoiile  in  A.IJ.  553     .             .             .  251 

CHAPTER  XII 
Subsequent  History  ok  Origenism 

i.   Disappearance  as  a  Scientific  System  ....  252 

ii.   In  the  7th  Century  represented  by  Maximus  Confessor          .  253 

iii.  In  the  West  scarcely  traceable  during  the  Middle  Ages          .  258 

iv.  John  Seotus  Erigena    ......  255 

V.  Causes  of  the  Neglect  of  Origen's  Writings  in  East  and  West  257 
vi.  The  Latin  Church  more  lenient  than  the  Greek  in  its  Judg- 
ment of  Origcn     ......  258 

vii.  Opinions  concerning  him  in  more  recent  Times          .             .  259 

Index        ........  2G3 


ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  PATRISTIC 
THEOLOGY 


CHAPTER    I 

Precursors  of  Origen 

Christianity  had  introduced  a  new  idea  of  God,  which 
superseded  not  only  the  deities  of  classical  mytholog5% 
but  also  the  Hebraic  Deism  which  regarded  God  merely 
as  the  God  of  the  Jews,  and  as  virtually  separate  from 
the  world.  The  Greek  patristic  theology  was  the 
result  of  the  application  of  the  specific  methods  of 
Greek  philosophy  to  the  new  material  supplied  by  the 
Christian  histor}^  with  the  view  of  constructing  a 
reasoned  theory  of  God  and  the  universe.  As  such  it 
was  "  the  last  characteristic  creation  of  the  Greek 
o-cnius."  In  the  New  Testament  God  is  represented 
from  a  religious  point  of  view ;  but  for  the  Greek  mind, 
which  conceived  God  metaphysically  as  abstract  Being, 
a  scientific  theology  was  indispensable.  The  facts  of 
Christianity  had  to  be  so  interpreted  as  to  jaeld  a 
conception  of  God  which  would  at  once  conserve  His 
unity,  and  yet  admit  of  His  organic  connection  with 
man  as  Lord  and  Saviour.     Naturally  this  result  was 


2       ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

reached  only  through  a  process  of  development.  The 
speculations  of  the  Gnostics  and  the  labours  of  the 
Apolojj^ists,  the  constructive  genius  of  Origcn  and  the 
acute  dialectic  of  Atlianasius,  all  contributed  towards 
the  evolution  of  the  matured  scientific  product  of  the 
Greek  thcolof,^y  as  defined  by  the  Councils  of  Nica3a 
and  Chalcedon. 

Everything  combined  to  mark  out  Alexandria  as  the 
place  most  likely  to  take  the  lead  in  any  great  intel- 
lectual movement.  Manj'^  currents  of  thought  met  and 
mingled  in  this  cosmopolitan  city,  which  witnessed  not 
only  the  first  attempts  at  a  scientific  theology,  but 
also  the  simultaneous  rise  of  the  last  great  s^'stem  of 
ancient  philosophy.  As  a  result  of  the  syncretism  of 
the  period,  a  remarkable  spirit  of  toleration  prevailed 
in  the  community ;  the  adherents  of  different  cults  and 
creeds  lived  side  by  side  in  mutual  goodwill.  Jews 
and  Samaritans,  orthodox  Christians  and  heretics, 
pagans  and  philosophers  of  all  schools  gathered  under 
the  same  roof  to  listen  to  the  prelections  of  Pantaenus 
and  Clement.  Christian  teachers  in  their  turn,  as  we 
know  from  the  examples  of  Heraclas  and  Origen,  sat 
at  the  feet  of  some  heathen  professor  of  philosophy. 
In  these  circumstances,  even  where  there  was  every 
disposition  to  be  loyal  to  the  faith  they  professed,  it 
was  impossible  for  any  to  remain  unaffected  by  the 
general  interchange  of  ideas.  A  certain  mutual  de- 
pendence of  Christian  and  heathen  speculation  was 
thus  one  of  the  most  pronounced  features  of  the  age. 
Men  of  diverse  creeds  unconsciously  influenced  one 
another  both  as  regards  the  maimer  and  the  subject- 
matter  of  their  thinking.  From  the  standpoint  of 
dogma  the  Church  of  Alcxandi'ia  came  thus  to  play  a 


PRECURSORS  OF  ORIGEN  3 

foremost  part,  and  to  enjoy  an  unrivalled  pre-eminence. 
The  intelloclual  life  of  Antioch,  where  the  new  faitli 
had  first  cai)tared  the  Gentile  heart,  was  feeble  in 
comparison  with  that  of  Alexandria.  Athens  was  too 
intimately  associated  with  the  faded  glories  of  poly- 
theism to  dispute  with  her  the  supremacy.  The  oenius 
of  Rome  lay  in  the  direction  not  of  lofty  speculation, 
but  of  iron  rule,  and  her  Christian  population  naturally 
imbibed  something  of  her  spirit.  The  Church  of 
Jerusalem  was  disqualified  by  its  narrow  Judaistic 
sympathies  from  taking  the  lead  in  theological  discus- 
sion. This  role  fell  therefore  to  the  Alexandrian 
Church,  and  was  nobl}^  prosecuted  and  sustained,  even 
during  times  of  persecution. 

Philo  and  his  predecessors  had  to  a  great  extent 
paved  the  way  for  a  systematised  expression,  in  terms 
of  Greek  philosophy,  of  the  contents  of  Jewish-Christian 
tradition.  Under  the  influence  of  philosophical  and 
Oriental  ideas  the  jagged  edges  of  Judaism  had  been 
toned  down,  and  elements  of  a  metaphysical  and 
mystical  nature  assumed.  In  the  doctrine  of  the 
Logos  a  meeting-point  had  been  found  between  Jewish 
monotheism  and  Gentile  philosophy.  "  All  the  elements 
of  Christian  theology,  except  the  historj*-  of  Christ, 
were  already  prepared  in  the  religious  and  philosophical 
eclecticism  of  Philo  and  other  Jewish  Hellenists :  the 
absolute  incomprehensibility  of  God,  who,  enclosed  in 
the  unfathomable  abyss  of  His  infinity,  acts  and  mani- 
fests Himself  only  through  His  Son  or  the  Word ;  the 
theory  of  the  Word  as  necessary  mediator  between  the 
Most  High  and  rational  creatures ;  that  of  the  prophetic 
Spirit  who  sustains  and  animates  the  world  of  souls, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  entire  universe ;  a  morality 


4       ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

at  once  cosmopolitan  and  spiritualistic  even  to  mysti- 
cism ;  the  resurrection  or  the  Zuioastrian- Jewish 
(masdeo-juirc)  doctrine  ol"  the  future  lii'e,  tending 
more  and  more  to  confound  itself  with  that  of  the 
immortality  of  the  soul,  or  with  the  form  which  the 
belief  in  a  future  life  had  assumed  among  the  Platonists; 
'in  sliort,  the  very  method  that  led  to  univei'sal  con- 
ciliation, and  of  which  tlie  principle  was  that  'the 
letter  killeth  and  the  spirit  giveth  life.' "  ^  The  rap- 
2W0chement  between  Jew  and  Greek  was  further 
favoured  by  the  general  eclectic  tendencies  of  the 
period,  and  by  the  fact  that  in  their  turn  the  Greeks 
allegorised  their  mythology  with  the  view  of  showing 
that  the  various  popular  deities  were  merely  crude 
expressions  of  the  manifold  activity  of  the  one  God. 
•  The  special  task,  then,  to  which  the  Christian  theo- 
logians of  Alexandria  addressed  themselves,  was  that 
of  harmonising  the  apostolic  tradition  concerning 
Christ  with  the  theological  conclusions  of  the  Jewish-' 
Alexandrian  philosophers — a  task  which  necessarily 
involved  considerable  modification  of  absolute  state- 
ment on  the  one  side  or  the  other.  The  problem  had 
been  already  attempted  by  the  Gnostics,  whose  wild 
speculation  had  on  the  one  hand  seriously  endangered 
Ciiristianity  by  nullifying  both  the  divinity  and  the 
humanity  of  Christ,  and  on  the  other  amounted  to  a 
gross  abuse  of  the  Greek  philosophy,  which  was  in 
consequence  being  widely  put  under  the  ban.  It  was 
the  aim  of  the  Alexandrian  theologians  to  restore 
philosophy  to  its  true  place  by  substituting  for  the 
false  gnosis  of  Basilides  and  Valentinus  a  true  churchly 
gnosis  which  should  do  justice  to  the  Old  and  New 
'  Denis,  Dc  la  Fhilosojihic  iVOrUjiiic,  p.  7. 


PRECURSORS  OF  ORIGEN  5 

Testaments  alike.  Certainly  they  were  not  hampered 
in  the  execution  of  their  task  by  any  narrow,  intoler- 
ant, or  particularistic  view  of  the  Christian  tradition  ; 
their  temptation,  indeed,  lay  in  the  opposite  direction. 
They  were  in  danger  of  distorting  it,  and  of  destroying 
its  essential  character,  by  a  too  great  readiness  to 
concede  the  demands  of  philosophy.  So  far  were  they 
from  consenting,  with  the  fiery  Tertullian,  to  denounce 
philosophy  as  the  fruitful  source  of  heresies,  and  so 
convinced  were  they  of  its  possible  value  to  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  that  they  became  themselves  philosophers, 
and  proceeded  to  define  their  position  with  regard  to 
existing  philosophical  schemes  of  the  universe.  Not 
that  they  exhibited  no  originality  in  their  thinking,  or 
that  it  is  impossible  to  decide  with  respect  to  funda- 
mental doctrines  whether  they  were  derived  from 
Christian  or  from  heathen  (Greek  or  Oriental)  sources. 
But  from  the  fact  that  many  ideas  were  common  to 
both/the  line  between  philosophy  and  theology  neces- 
sarily became  very  indistinct./  Both  were  developed 
almost  j)a7'i  2''^^^''-^-  '-t'liere  was  an  effort  to  enrich 
Christian  doctrine  by  the  assumption  of  elements  from 
the  schools,  with  the  twofold  result  that  Christian 
gnosis  was  made  to  include  the  sum  total  of  know- 
ledge, and  that  the  distinction  between  scientific  in- 
vestigation and  ecclesiastical  orthodoxy  was  obscured. 
/The  points  of  resemblance  between  philosophy  and 
Christianity  were  overestimated,  and  what  was  most 
characteristic  of  the  latter  was  to  a  large  extent  lost 
sight  oL/ 

In  order,  then,  to  a  right  conception  of  the  state  of 
matters  in  Alexandria  at  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century,  it  must  be  recognised  that  there  were  growing 


6        ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

and  working  on  the  fs;unc  soil  two  twin  schools,  the 
heathen  and  the  Christian.  Tlic  history  of  the  one  is 
interwoven  with  that  of  the  other.  They  existed  side 
by  side,  opposed  and  j'et  indebted  to  each  other  in 
doctrine  and  teaching.  In  such  circumstances  it  was 
clear  that  a  new  era  must  open  for  Christianity. 
Hitherto  Christian  writers  had  wa-itten  only  in  the 
interests  of  practical  religion.  They  had  been  eminently 
uncritical,  and  no  system  of  theology  had  been  elabor- 
ated. Now,  however,  the  Alexandrian  teachers  were 
compelled  to  attempt  something  in  this  direction.  The 
prevailing  pagan  philosophy  had  to  be  met  on  its  own 
ground.  To  some  degree  the  Gnostics  may  be  said  to 
have  opposed  it,  but  they  gave  no  fair  exposition  of 
those  Christian  principles  which  they  assimilated.  The 
situation  of  the  Alexandrian  Christians  was  thus  in 
many  respects  unique.  They  witnessed  the  fragments 
of  the  old  systems  gathered  together  to  produce, 
through  the  introduction  of  Platonic  ideas,  a  revived 
and  spiritualised  paganism  in  opposition  to  Christianity, 
for  the  ushering  in  of  Neoplatonism  by  Ammonius 
constituted  the  last  prop  of  the  old  world.  If,  however, 
we  think  to  find  in  the  writings  of  the  Alexandrian 
teachers  a  systematic  refutation  of  Neoplatonism  in  its 
various  principles,  we  shall  be  disappointed.  So,  too, 
if  we  look  for  a  definite  position  against  Christianity 
in  the  works  of  Platouists.  Neither  system  was  as 
yet  sufficiently  developed  to  admit  of  this.  But  there 
was  between  the  two  systems  an  essential  difference  at 
bottom,  and  the  real  conflict  for  the  Church  lay  in  its 
being  forced  very  much  to  leave  jts  own  standpoint 
and  adopt  that  of  its  opponents.  ^To  combat  Platonism 
it  must  needs  accommodate  itself  to  philosophy,  and  in 


PRECURSORS  OF  ORIGEN  7 

submitting  to  this  it  became  fettered  with  philosophical 
adjuncts  to  a  danc^crously  suicidal  extent.  As  in  its 
conflict  with  Judaism,  so  also  here,  Christianity  in- 
sensibly assimilated  part  of  the  error  against  which  it 
strove.  That  errors,  mystical,  speculative,  allegorical, 
and  pagan,  began  to  choke  it  like  so  many  weeds,  is 
clear  from  the  works  of  the  men  who,  from  their 
position  as  prefects  of  the  Catechetical  School,  neces- 
sarily became  apologists  for  Christianity.,-  All  of  them 
were  more  or  less  tinctured  with  Platonic  views.  They 
were  themselves  philosophers,  and  so  could  sympathise 
with  their  opponents,  whose  error  they  were  disposed 
to  view  rather  as  one  of  defect  than  as  a  total  perver- 
sion of  truth.  In  this  way  they  were  led  to  over- 
estimate the  similarity  between  pagan  and  Christian 
wisdom.  Prior  to  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century 
Christian  teaching,  with  very  few  exceptions,  had  been 
true  to  apostolic  example  ;  but  after  philosophers 
embraced  Christianity,  and  the  new  Platonism,  which 
allied  itself  to  Orientalism,  began  to  exert  its  influence, 
the  case  was  altered.  The  intellectual  was  frequently 
represented  as  the  chief  or  only  side  of  Christianity  to 
be  attended  to ;  it  was  regarded  not  so  much  as  a  rule 
of  life  as  a  speculative  scheme  of  doctrine.  From  this 
the  transition  was  easy  to  "  mysteries  "  similar  to  those 
of  heathenism.  Certain  views  were  kept  secret  as  a 
higher  species  of  doctrine  suitable  only  for  the  cultivated 
few.  An  attempt  was  made,  in  short,  to  provide  the 
gospel  with  a  philosophy,  and  to  resolve  it  into  such  a 
system  as  philosopliers  would  end)race. 

Nor  is  the  explanation  of  all  this  far  to  seek.  It 
may  at  first  sight  seem  strange  that  Christian  teachers 
could  embrace  doctrines  known  to  be  Platonic,  but  we 


8        ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

must  recollect  that  these  same  doctrines  were  supposed 
to  have  been  borrowed  from  Holy  Scripture,  which 
tliey  believed  to  be  the  revelation  of  God's  wisdom  to 
men.  Speculative  theologians,  moreover,  have  always 
been  influenced  by  contemporary  philosophy,  and  these 
Alexandrian  Fathers  only  sought  to  express  the  doc- 
trines of  the  faith  in  a  form  adapted  to  the  spirit  of 
the  times.  Men  like  Justin  and  Clement  had  them- 
selves passed  over  from  heathen  philosophy,  and 
naturally  carried  with  them  much  of  its  influence ; 
but  they  had  nevertheless  an  ardent  desire  to  see 
Christian  truth  in  its  right  place.  It  would  be  as 
unwarrantable  to  seek  the  main  source  of  their 
theology  in  the  philosophical  speculation  of  the  period 
as  it  would  be  to  say  that  the  Hebrew  religion  was 
essentially  altered  in  the  post-exilic  period  because  it 
embellished  itself  somewhat  with  Persian  angclology. 
After  all,  the  Alexandrian  Fathers  "  did  not  exchange 
the  gospel  for  Ncoplatonism."  ^  They  resolutely  main- 
tained the  supreme  authority  of  Holy  Scripture ;  and 
with  whatever  distortions  and  incongruities  it  may 
have  been  associated,  the  assertion  of  this  principle  of 
an  objective  rule  of  faith  was  in  itself  of  the  utmost 
value  in  combating  a  philosophy  of  which  the 
only  standard  lay  in  the  subjective  notions  of  its 
advocates. 

The  moulding  of  Christian  theology  according  to  the 
Greek  type  is  specially  identified  with  the  Catechetical 
School  of  Alexandria.  The  origin  of  this  famous  school 
appears  to  have  been  as  spontaneous  as  its  growth 
was  marked.  It  arose  out  of  the  necessities  of  the 
Alexandrian  Church,  but  oi"  its  iirst  beginnings  we 
'  KedL'iieuiiing,  i.  p.  [)S. 


PRECURSORS  OF  ORIGEN  9 

have  no  historical  account.  Owing,  probably,  to  tliis 
circumstance  it  has  been  variously  described  as  a 
school  for  catechumens,  as  a  theological  seminary,  and 
as  a  philosophical  institute.  While  it  had  elements 
represented  by  all  of  these  names,  it  would  be  wrong 
to  associate  it  with  any  one  of  them  exclusively.  It 
was  a  product  of  the  gradual  evolution  of  Church  life 
in  an  educated  communit}',  and  as  such  adapted  itself 
to  the  changing  necessities  of  the  times.  Ajiparently 
destined  at  first  for  the  education  of  catechumens  after 
the  informal  instruction  of  an  earlier  period  no  longer 
sufficed,  it  soon  became  a  famous  school  of  theology ; 
and  in  view  of  its  environment  and  of  the  intellectual 
bent  of  its  most  influential  teachers,  it  is  not  wonderful 
that  it  became  a  school  of  philosophy  as  well.  Con- 
tiguity to  a  great  seat  of  learning  has  always  an 
influence  on  Church  life,  and  in  a  university  town 
like  Alexandria  the  Christian  community  as  a  whole, 
and  the  Catechetical  School  in  particular,  were  inevit- 
ably affected  in  this  way.  The  flower  of  their  youth 
— students  like  Ambrosius  and  Heraclas — listened  to 
the  lectures  of  the  Greek  professors,  while  many  of 
the  latter,  like  Celsus  and  Porphyry,  applied  them- 
selves to  the  critical  study  of  the  Scriptures.  This 
nuitual  iutoi'course  between  the  Church  and  the  shrine 
of  classical  learning  gave  to  the  catechetical  instruction 
in  Alexandria  a  more  systematic  and  scholastic  form 
than  it  elsewhere  assumed,  and  by  the  middle  of  the 
second  century  it  had  crystallised  into  a  regular 
institution. 

Although  the  catechist's  office  was  not  an  ecclesi- 
astical one  in  the  sense  of  requiring  any  special  con- 
secration,   his    was    not    simply    "  the    calling   of    a 


lo     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

philosopher  who  held  pubHc  lectures"  (S/ar^/iS?;).^     No 
one  could  exercise  this  office  without  the  consent  of 
the  bishop ;    and  only  in  so  far  as  it  was  carried  on 
in  his  name  and  under  his  supervision  was  the  in- 
struction   "public."      Students   were    taught    in    tlie 
catechist's  own  house,  not  in  a  building  set  apart  for 
the  purpose.     Although  no  salary  was  attached  to  the 
office,  the  catechetical  teacher^  were  virtually  supported 
by  their  hearers.     At  first  there  may  have  been  only 
one,  but  sometimes  tliere  were  several,  and  they  were 
free  either  to  obtain  an  assistant  or  to  vacate  the  post. 
Also,  to  begin  with,  there  were  no  set  hours  for  teach- 
ing;,  and    no    irradation    of    classes.      Sometimes   the 
teachers   were  in  request  the  whole  day  long.     The 
aim  of  the  instruction  given  was   the  preparation  of 
catechumens,  es])ccially  those  drawn  from  the  learned 
heathen,    for    admission  to  Christian    privileges    and 
for    the    service    of    the    Church.      These    cultured 
converts  from  paganism  became  in  due  time  effective 
Christian    teachers,    and     had    among    their    pupils 
Christian  youths  and  others   who  wished    to  gain   a 
student's  knowledge  of  Christianity.      When   the   im- 
mediate disciples  of  the  apostles  no  longer  survived, 
a  converted    philosopher   seemed    to   many   the    most 
reliable  of  guides.      Thus  in   the  second   century   we 
find     iimltitudes    gathered    round    Justin   Martyr   at 
Ivuiue,     Aristidcs     at     Athens,    and      Pantaenus      at 
Alexandria.      The   method  of  instruction  was  varied 
to  suit  pupils,  who  w^cre  of  both  sexes  and  of  different 
ages.     "  We  put   the   gospel    before  each  one,  as   his 
character  and  disposition  may  fit  him  to  receive  it."  ^ 

1  Schnitzcr,  Origcncsiiherdie  OrundlehrenderOlaubensmsscnschuft,  p.  v. 
-  Origeii,  Contra  Cclsnm,  vi.  10. 


PRECURSORS  OF  ORIGEN  ii 

If  to  some  were  imparted  only  the  elementary  facts 
of  the  Christian  faith,  otlicra  were  introduced  to  more 
advanced  studies  in  Christian  doctrine,  and  trained 
in  philosophy  as  well.  What  was  embraced  in  a 
complete  course  of  training  is  made  clear  from  the 
detailed  account  given  by  Gregory  Tliaumaturgus  of 
the  course  of  study  prescribed  by  Origen  for  his 
students.^  "  He  took  us  in  hand  as  a  skilled  husband- 
man may  take  in  hand  some  hold  unwrought ; "  "  he 
put  us  to  the  question,  and  made  propositions  to  us, 
and  listened  to  our  replies  ;  "  he  trained  "  that  capacity 
of  our  minds  which  deals  critically  with  words  and 
reasonings."  His  pupils,  Gregory  tells  us,  were  next 
introduced  to  natural  science,  geometry,  and  astronomy. 
To  this  was  added  the  study  of  philosophy  on  the 
broad  basis  of  a  careful  perusal  of  all  the  ancient  poets 
and  philosophers  "  except  only  the  productions  of  the 
atheists."  A  programme  like  this  would,  of  course, 
give  ample  scope  for  a  suggestive  comparison  of  pagan 
and  Christian  wisdom.  The  study  of  physical  and 
mental  science  M^as  a  preparation  for  the  still  more 
important  sul^jects  of  ethics  and  theology.  Ethical 
problems  lend  themselves  peculiarl}-  to  keen  dialectic 
discussion  after  the  Socratic  method,  and  this  was 
the  method  adopted  in  the  Catechetical  School  for  the 
expulsion  of  ignorance  and  error,  and  for  the  cultiva- 
tion of  a  genuine  love  of  truth.  This  Christian  school, 
moreover,  was  honourably  distinguished  from  the 
pagan  schools  of  the  period  by  making  virtue  a  subject 
for  practice,  and  not   merely  for  definition  and  dis- 

'  Gregory  is,  indecfl,  liere  siieakiii^L^  of  Oriyen's  later  work  in  C;r.sarea  ; 
but  the  methods  and  suhjucts  adopted  by  him  there  were  doubthss 
those  previously  in  use  at  Alexandria. 


12      ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

course.  Says  Gregory  oi"  Urigcn,  "  he  stimulated  us 
by  the  deeds  he  did  more  than  by  the  doctrines  lie 
taught."  But  the  grand  distinctive  feature  of  this 
school  was  its  theology — its  declaration  regarding  the 
incarnation,  death,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  as 
the  Saviour  of  the  world.  To  this  all  other  topics  and 
themes  were  reckoned  subsidiary.  It  would  be  difficult 
to  conceive  a  more  enlightened  scheme  of  Christian 
education  than  this,  which  the  wisdom  of  the  Alexan- 
drian Fathers  had  already  drawn  up  and  put  in  force 
at  the  close  of  the  second  century.  It  fairly  harnessed 
secular  science  to  the  chariot  of  Christian  apologetics. 

The  Catechetical  School  first  emerges  from  historic 
obscurity  about  a.d.  190.  It  was  then  under  the 
mastership  of  Panta^nus,  a  convert  from  Stoicism.  Of 
his  personal  history  little  is  known.  According  to 
riiotius,  his  teachers  were  men  wlio  had  seen  the 
apostles.  Jerome  represents  him  as  an  extensive 
(allegorical)  commentator,  and  as  having  discovered  a 
Hebrew  version  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  during  a 
missionary  journey  to  the  East;  but,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  a  single  remark  about  the  use  of  the  tenses 
in  the  prophetic  writings,  his  works  have  perished. 
Ignorant  as  we  are  as  to  the  particular  nature  of  his 
teaching,  we  know  that  he  was  the  lirst  to  give  to  the 
Alexandrian  School  its  distinctive  character  as  one 
that  mingled  philosophy  with  religious  instruction. 
He  was  succeeded  by  his  own  pupil,  the  better  known 
Titus  Flavius  Clemens. 

Clement  was  born,  probably  at  Athens,  about  the 
middle  of  the  second  century.  His  studies  in  religion 
led  him  to  forsake  paganism  and  embrace  Christianity. 
The  same  inquiring  spirit  caused   him  afterwards  to 


PRECURSORS  OF  ORIGEN  13 

travel  tlirou<j^li  many  lands  in  search  of  the  most  dis- 
tiniruishcd  Christian  teachers.  liel'ernnc:  to  this,  he 
says:  "The  last  of  those  whom  I  met  was  first  in 
power.  On  falling  in  with  him  I  found  rest,  having 
tracked  him  while  he  la}^  concealed  in  Egypt.  He 
was,  in  truili,  the  Sicilian  bee,  and,  plucking  the 
ilowers  of  the  prophetic  and  apostolic  meadow,  he 
produced  a  wonderfully  pure  knowledge  in  the  souls 
of  the  listeners."  ^  The  allusion  here  is  obviously  to 
Fantasnus.  Clement,  who  attained  the  rank  of  pres- 
byter in  tlie  Church  of  Alexandria,  discharged  his 
catechetical  duties  with  much  distinction,  and  counted 
among  his  pupils  Origen  and  Alexander,  bishop  of 
Jerusalem.  In  the  year  202,  during  the  persecution  of 
Severus,  he  appears  to  have  quitted  Alexandria.  Of 
his  subsequent  movements  nothing  is  known  except 
that  in  211  he  travelled  to  Antioch,  and  carried  a 
letter  of  recommendation  from  Alexander  of  Jerusalem, 
who  speaks  highly  of  the  service  rendered  by  Clement 
to  the  Church  of  his  own  diocese. 

In  the  o:reat  work  of  winning  the  Greek  world  for 
Christianity,  Clement  was  the  innnediate  precursor  of 
Origen,  the  forerunner  without  whom  Origen,  as  we 
know  him,  could  not  have  been.  His  birth  and 
training,  as  well  as  his  temperament  and  scholarly 
acquirements,  fitted  him  for  the  part  he  was  destined 
to  play.  He  knew  the  world  both  on  its  pagan  and 
its  Christian  side.  The  Greek  classics  were  as  familiar 
to  him  as  the  Christian  Scriptures.  He  was  equally 
at  home  with  the  Greek  philosophy  and  the  Pauline 
theology.  Essentially  a  literary  man,  he  quotes — 
sometimes  loosely,  it  must  be  confessed — from  hun- 
^  Slromatcis,  i.  1. 


14      ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

drcds  oi"  authors,  and  evidently  made  good  use  of  the 
library  in  the  Sarapieion.  lie  was  neither  an  eloquent 
orator  nor  a  bustling  ecclesiastic,  neither  a  i)ublic  dis- 
putant nor  a  social  reformer,  but  a  genial  man  of 
letters,  of  a  meditative  cast  of  mind,  and  with  a  certain 
distaste  for  the  strife  and  turmoil  of  everyday  life. 

The  obscuration  by  the  Gnostics,  not  only  of  the  real 
nature  of  redemption,  but  also  of  the  character  of  God, 
led  Tertullian  and  others  to  pronounce  Greek  learning 
the  invention  of  demons.  Clement's  whole  teaching- 
amounted  to  a  strenuous  denial  of  this  position. 
Whatever  its  origin — and  Clement  still  repeats  the 
old  charge  of  "theft"  from  the  Pentateuch^ — philo- 
sophy was  in  his  estimation  no  work  of  darkness, 
but  in  each  of  its  forms  a  ray  of  light  from  the  Logos, 
and  therefore  belonging  of  right  to  the  Christian. 
Strong  as  Gnosticism  was  in  Alexandria,  and  strong 
as  were  the  orthodox  party  in  the  Church  who  took 
their  stand  upon  the  creed  simplicitcr,  "  even  in  that 
age  and  place  Clement  saw  and  dared  to  proclaim  that 
the  cure  of  error  is  not  less  knowledge  but  more."^ 
With  an  ahnost  passionate  conviction  he  asserted  not 
only  that  there  is  in  the  Church  a  legitimate  place  and 
function  for  secular  learning, — e.g.  in  the  exposition  of 
Scripture, — but  also  that  .such  learning  is  ethically  in- 
dispensable, inasmuch  as  it  needs  an  intelligent  Chris- 
tian to  act  justly.  Science,  he  contended,  although  it 
lends  grace  and  clearness  to  the  preacher,  is  no  mere 

1  It  h  doubtful  Low  far  Clement  was  really  convinced  of  this, 
although  lie  speaks  of  philosophy  having  been  "stolen  as  the  lire  by 
Pronietlieus,"  and  allows  that  John  x.  8  may  be  applicable  to  Greek 
philosophers  {Strom,  i.  17).  He  knew,  at  any  rate,  that  their  dialectic 
had  not  been  borrowed  by  the  Greeks. 

-  Bigg,  The  Christian  I'latonists  of  Alccandria,  p.  50. 


PRECURSORS  OF  ORIGEN  15 

ornamental  fringe  to  religion ;  it  is  necessaiy  to  riglit 
conduct.  What  pliilosoplicrs  of  all  schools  had  been 
aiming  at  was  also  the  aim  of  Christianity,  viz.  a 
nobler  life.  The  difference,  according  to  Clement,  was 
this :  while  the  ancient  philosophers  had  been  unable 
to  get  more  than  glimpses  of  the  truth,  it  was  left  to 
Christianity  to  make  known  in  Christ  the  perfect 
truth.  The  various  epochs  in  the  history  of  the  world 
all  pointed  forward  to  this  final  revelation ;  and  just 
as  the  law  prepared  the  Jews,  so  also  philosophy  pre- 
pared the  Greeks  for  Christ.  Clement  believed  in  a 
similar  evolution  in  the  Christian  life.  As  the  world 
must  needs  go  through  several  stages  preparatory  to 
the  coming  of  Christ,  so  must  a  man  advance  by 
degrees  from  faith  {'rriang)  to  love,  and  from  love  to 
knowledge  (yvuaig),  to  the  position  of  a  perfect  Chris- 
tian. What  he  and  his  fellow-teachers  set  themselves 
to  do,  therefore,  was  to  educate  philosophers  up  to  the 
point  of  accepting  Christianity,  which  they  represented 
as  only  a  higher  development  and  further  advance  on 
the  same  line  as  that  along  which  they  had  themselves 
been  travelling.^  The  same  God  had  been  recognised 
by  Greek,  Jew,  and  Christian  alike,  but  to  the  last 
only  had  there  been  given  a  truly  spiritual  knowledge 
of  Him.  Christianity  was  the  ultimate  goal  for  all 
philosophy.  Whatever  was  good  in  the  latter  was  (as 
Justin  had  already  taught)  the  result  01  the  teaching 
of  the  same  Logos  who  in  Christianity  had  revealed 
the  totality  of  truth.  While,  therefore,  Clement 
admires,  and  within  proper  limits  defends,  philosophy, 

^  "There  i.s  in  pliilosopliy  ...  a  slonder  spark  capalilc  of  being 
fanned  into  llame,  a  trace  of  wisdom  and  an  impulse  from  God" 
{Strom,  i.  17). 


1 6     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

lie  maintains  its  inadequacy  as  a  (^nidc  to  the  know- 
ledge of  Goil^  Although  viewing  it  as  good  in  itself, 
as  a  useful  weapon  for  the  defence  of  Christian  truth, 
and  as  an  invalual)le  aid  in  the  education  of  the 
enlightened  man — the  true  Gnostic,  he  clearly  sees  its 
limits,  and  refuses  to  set  it  in  the  seat  of  Christ,  the 
one  Physician  of  the  soul.  If  on  its  intellectual  side 
Clement's  theology  is  coloured  by  Greek  philosophy, 
on  its  religious  side  it  is  derived  directly  from  Chris- 
tianity. If  he  thinks  as  a  Platonist,  he  feels  as  a 
Christian.  The  two  sources  from  which  he  drew — 
Greek  philosophy  and  literature  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  Bible  and  Christianity  on  the  other — are  no  doubt 
at  many  points  imperfectly  fused ;  instead  of  an 
intimate  blending  of  philosophy  and  tradition,  we 
have  them  set  merely  in  juxtaposition.  For  instance, 
at  one  time,  in  characteristic  philosophic  fashion,  he 
strips  God  of  all  His  attributes  and  conceives  Him  as 
the  pure  Monad ;  at  another  he  al^andons  this  tran- 
scendental position  and  apprehends  God  as  the  loving 
Father  of  His  creatures.  But  in  the  circumstances 
this  defect  is  not  surprising;  it  arose  from  his  being 
at  once  an  advocate  and  an  opponent  of  philosophy. 

Clement  further  maintained  that,  in  order  to  a  full- 
grown  Christian  manhood,  practical  piety  must  be 
combined  with  intellectual  freedom.  There  must,  he 
held,  be  scope  for  reason  as  well  as  for  faith,  for  know- 
ledge as  well  as  for  love.  This  led  him,  in  common 
with  others  of  the  Alexandrian  school,  to  attach  less 
importance  to  mere  historical  facts  than  to  the  undcr- 
lyino-  ideas.  The  letter  of  revelation  he  brought  under 
the  judgment  of  reason.     But  not  so  as  to  make  reason 

^  See  Strom,  i.  20. 


PRECURSORS  OF  ORIGEN  17 

independent  of  faith,  which  he  declared  to  be  as  neces- 
Haiy  for  spiritual  as  breath  for  physical  lifc.^  It  was 
his  endeavour  to  do  justice  to  both,  and  to  represent 
both  as  essential  to  a  healthy  piety.  In  this  way 
Clement  at  once  anticipated  the  great  principle  of 
Protestantism,  and  showed  sympathy  with  the  stand- 
point of  the  Mystics,  although  with  him  the  mystical 
has  always  its  roots  in  the  rational. 

In  his  view  of  Holy  Scripture  Clement  stands  mid- 
way between  Justin  and  theologians  like  Irenseus  and 
Tertullian.  On  the  one  hand  he  makes  use  of  sacred 
Christian  writings  as  well  as  of  the  Old  Testament. 
But  on  the  other  hand  he  does  not  educe  from  the 
Christian  tradition  a  series  of  propositions  purporting 
to  embrace  the  \vhole  content  of  Christianity,  and 
represent  these  as  an  apostolic  rule  of  faith.  The 
regida  field  of  the  Churches  of  Rome  and  Carthage 
had  not  yet  been  established  in  the  Alexandrian 
Church.  In  Clement's  view  the  enlightened  man  is 
able  to  decide  as  to  the  truth  of  Christian  doctrine. 
Apart  from  the  appearance  of  the  Logos  in  flesh,  the 
most  perfect  revelation  given  to  men  in  this  life  is 
that  contained  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  which 
are  throughout  verbally  inspired.  Its  simplicity  of 
language  is  intended  to  make  it  comprehensible  to  all ; 
and  as  it  affords  everything  needful  for  the  soul's 
peace  and  happiness,  and  is  the  best  guide  to  holiness, 
it  should  be  read  daily.  While  treating  the  law  as 
inferior  to  the  gospel  in  respect  of  its  teaching  being- 
more  negative  and  more  obscure,  and  based  upon  fear 
instead  of  love,  he  yet  asserts  the  unity  of  all  scrip- 
ture as  emanating  from  the  Most  High ;  "  for  faith  in 
^  Stvom.  ii.  6. 


1 8      ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

Cliri.st  and  the  knowledge  oi"  the  gospel  are  the 
explanation  and  fultilment  of  the  law."  In  defending 
the  unity  of  Holy  Scripture  against  the  Gnostics,  who 
strongly  impeached  the  morality  of  the  Old  Testament 
in  connection  with  such  things,  e.g.  as  the  approval  of 
wars  of  extermination,  Clement  is  content  to  maintain 
that  justice  (severity)  is  not  incompatible  with  good- 
ness, being  indeed  but  its  obverse  side.  It  was  left 
for  Origen  to  attempt  a  systematic  refutation  of  the 
charges  of  immorality  thus  brought  against  Jehovah, 
Assuming  that  whatever  fragments  of  truth  may  be 
in  the  possession  of  heathen  authors  must  be  con- 
tained in  the  source  from  which  they  were  all  origin- 
ally borrowed,  Clement  further  seeks  through  inspired 
Scripture  to  arrive  at  the  solution  of  the  speculative 
questions  canvassed  in  his  time. 

Corresponding  to  the  twofold  nature  of  the  incarnate 
Logos  is  the  double  sense  of  Scripture — the  outward  or 
literal,  and  the  inner  or  allegorical.^  The  "  method  of 
concealment,"  or  the  wrapping-up  of  truth  in  figures, 
is  both  necessary  and  universal, — necessary,  because 
the  inexpressible  God  of  the  universe  can  never  be 
committed  to  writing;  universal,  because  common  to 
men  of  different  nationalities  and  to  sacred  and  pro- 
fane writers  alike.-   In  support  of  the  latter  statement, 

^  According  to  Clement  [Strom,  i.  28),  Scripture  has  oven  a  fourfold 
sense — the  literal,  the  nij'stic,  the  moral,  and  the  prophetic.  For 
TfT/saxws  some  would  read  rpix^^s,  as  the  three  last  senses  only  are 
specified,  but  the  literal  may  be  omitted  as  self-evident.  Clement 
also  classifies  "the  Mosaic  philosoiihy"  as — (1)  History,  (2)  Legislation 
(  =  Ethics),  (3)  Sacrifice  (  =  Physics),  (4)  TJieology  or  Ejioiiteia  (  =  Meta- 
physics or  Dialectics).  This  identification  of  the  sacrificial  witli  physical 
science  is  certainly  very  forced.  Epoptcia  or  vision  was  the  term  used 
of  the  highest  stage  of  initiation  into  the  mysteiios. 
*  Strom,  v.  4. 


PRECURSORS  OF  ORIGEN  19 

Clement  points  to  the  mystic  meaning  ol"  the  Mosaic 
Tabernacle  and  its  i'urniture,  to  the  Egyptian  hiero- 
glyphics and  sphinxes,  and  to  the  Greek  oracles,  poets, 
and  philosophers. 

The  practical  outcome  of  these  views  is  seen  in  the 
distinction  drawn  between  the  true  Gnostic  or  fully 
enlightened  Christian  and  the  ordinary  unsophisticated 
disciple.  The  belief  of  the  former  is  elevated  into  a 
mystery  which  may  not  be  revealed  to  the  latter  any 
more  than  to  the  profane.  When  truth  is  veiled  in 
symbols,  the  true  Gnostic  apprehends  where  the  ignor- 
rant  man  fails;  hence  the  inadvisability  of  exposing 
the  benefits  of  wisdom  to  all  and  sundry  (Strom,  v.  9). 
Founding  on  Col.  i.  25  ff.,  Clement  holds  that  hidden 
mysteries  received  by  the  apostles  from  the  Lord  had 
been  handed  down  in  direct  succession  until  those  who 
possessed  the  tradition  of  the  blessed  doctrine  "came 
by  God's  will  to  us  also  to  deposit  those  ancestral  and 
apostolic  seeds"  (Strom,  i.  1,  vi.  8).  These  Christian 
mysteries  were  not  disclosed  to  the  general  body  of  the 
pupils  attending  the  Catechetical  School.  Their  proper 
diet  was  "milk"  or  catechetical  instruction,  and  not 
"  meat "  or  mystic  contemplation.  On  this  principle 
the  lower  grades  among  the  catechumens  were  not 
introduced  to  anything  which  he  reckoned  as  Gnosis. 
They  had  the  fundamental  dogmas  of  the  Church 
expounded  to  them,  but  not  the  abstruser  speculations 
about  "  the  being  of  God,  the  origin  of  the  world,  the 
last  things,  the  relation  of  reason  to  revelation,  of  phil- 
osophy to  Christianity,  of  faith  to  knowledge,"  which 
were  reserved  for  the  enlightened.  It  is  clear,  how- 
ever, from  some  extant  passages  of  works  written  by 
Clement  for  general  use,  that  he  took  note  of  heresies 


20     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

with  the  view  ot"  i'ortiryino-  the  catcehiiincns  against 
apostasy.^  All  were  taught  the  gospel  from  the  stand- 
point ot"  one  who  acknowledged  that  even  in  paganism 
there  were  finger-posts  pointing  to  Christ ;  all  were 
instructed,  probably  with  much  minuteness,  in  Chris- 
tian ethics,  both  individual  and  social ;  but  only  the 
specially  devoted  were  taken  as  it  were  into  the  Holy 
of  holies  and  secretly  schooled  in  the  deeper  mysteries.] 

Although  his  teaching  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
characterised  by  orderliness,  his  daring  flights  of 
thought,  his  lively  speech,  wnth  its  wealth  of  figure 
and  literary  allusion,  and  his  spiritual  depth,  must 
have  profoundly  impressed  his  hearers,  and  probably 
Origen  among  the  rest.  It  seems  more  than  likely  that 
the  latter  became  orally  acquainted  with  his  views,  and 
imbibed  from  him  the  distinction  of  exoteric  and  esoteric 
doctrine.  At  any  rate  his  influence  on  Origen  is  un- 
doubted. That  writer  never,  indeed,  quotes  Clement 
by  name,  but  his  W'Orks  show  how  much  he  was  in- 
debted to  his  genial  and  erudite  predecessor  in  the 
Catechetical  School. 

With  the  exception  of  the  treatise  Qais  Dives  Sal- 
vetur  ("  Who  is  the  rich  man  that  is  saved?"),  Clement's 
extant  waitings  are  limited  to  three  great  works  wdiich 
form  a  connected  and  graduated  series.  The  idea  under- 
lying the  whole  of  this  tripartite  work  is  that  of  the 
activity  of  the  Logos,  the  reason  of  the  w^orld,  and  the 
divine  teacher  of  the  human  race.  As  such  he  "  first 
conducts  the  rude  heathen,  sunk  in  sin  and  idolatry, 
to  the  faith  ;  then  progressively  reforms  their  lives  by 
moral  precepts;  and  finally  elevates  those  who  have  under- 
gone this  moral  purification  to  the  profounder  knowledge 

'  His  own  phrase  is  that  he  rlrcw  round  tlicm  "a  hedge"  of  learning. 


PRECURSORS  OF  ORIGEN  21 

of  divine  tliinf;"s,  which  lie  calls  Chiosis."  ^     Clement's 
one  great  theme  was  this  divinely  wrought  develojjment 
in  tlie  spiritual  life  of  men.    The  Protreptikos  ("  Exhor- 
tation  to  the   Heathen")  is  an  appeal  to  his   pagan 
hearers  to  rise  above  the  slavery  of  custom  ;  to  abandon 
a  worship  not  only  irrational  in  itself,  but  associated 
with  immorality  and  cruelty,  and  to  take  on  them  the 
yoke  of  Christ.     Brimful  of  classical  lore,  it  is  written 
throughout  in  a  cultured  and  Christian  spirit,  and  con- 
tains many  passages  of  great  beauty.     The  Poidagogos 
("  Instructor  ")  is  addressed  to  neophytes,  and  is  designed 
to  train  them  in  the   art  of  Christian  living  as  "an 
indispensable  preparation  for  the  contemplative  know- 
ledge of  God."     In   the   tirst  of  the  three  books  into 
which   it  is   divided    Clement  exhibits   Christ  as  the 
great   Pcedagogus,  dealing,   however,   more   with   the 
method  than  with  the  substance  of  His  teaching.     The 
second  and  third  books  contain  very  minute  regulations 
as  to  the  behaviour  required  of   a  Christian  in  the 
difi'ercnt  experiences,  relations,  and  circumstances  of 
life.     Although  no  longer  necessary,  such  an  encyclo- 
paidia  of  conduct  may  well  have  served  a  useful  pur- 
pose among  those  just  emerging  from  heathenism  and 
beset  with  great  temptations  and  difficulties.     At  the 
close  of  the  third  book  Clement  gives  a  bird's-eye  view 
of  the  ethical  side  of  Christian  life ;  and  appended  to 
the  "  Instructor "  are  two  hymns  ascribed  to  his  pen. 
Stromateis  ("  Miscellanies,"  lit.  coverlets  made  out   of 
odd  pieces  of  cloth)  is  the  fitting  title  given  by  Clement 
to  his  largest  work.     It  is  a  miscellaneous  collection  of 
materials  drawn  partly  from    Greek   philosophy   and 
literature,   and   partly   from   Scripture,   without   any 
^  Neaudcr,  OJnirch  Illstory,  ii.  p.  486. 


22      ORIGEN   AND   GREEK  THEOLOGY 

definite  plan  or  arraiigcinciit,  and  designed  to  enable 
those  already  i'ainiliar  with  the  <li,scipline  of  the  In- 
structor to  advance  to  a  higher  Christian  gnosis  founded 
upon  faith.  It  seeks  to  exhibit  the  attitude  of  the 
true  Cliristian  Gnostic  to  philoso})hy.  Of  the  eight 
books  of  which  it  was  composed  the  last  appears  to 
have  been  lost,  its  place  having  been  taken  b}'  a  frag- 
mentary treatise  upon  Logic  which  had  originall}^  no 
connection  with  the  work. 

According  to  some  writers,^  it  was  Clement's  inten- 
tion to  publish  a  further  treatise  suitable  for  more 
matured  Christians,  somewhat  on  the  lines  of  Origen's 
De  Pri7\ciinU,\\\t\\  the  view  of  leading  them,  through 
the  help  of  philosophy,  to  a  more  recondite  knowledge 
of  Christian  truth.  However  this  may  be,  it  is  at  any 
rate  permissible  to  discount  liberally  Clement's  state- 
ment that  he  did  not  impart  all  he  knew.  He  was 
aware,  of  coui-se,  that  his  work  would  be  misused  by 
the  heathen,  and  by  some  Christians  as  well,  but  he 
was  anxious  to  counteract  Hellenic  and  heretical  litera- 
ture, and  to  protect  esoteric  doctrine  from  falsification 
and  destruction.  For  these  reasons,  and  also  to  assist 
his  own  memory  in  old  age,  he  felt  constrained  to 
write  the  above-mentioned  works  in  which  nothing 
essential  has  been  withheld.  At  the  same  time,  he 
appears  to  have  resolved  in  all  the  circumstances  not 
to  treat  the  esoteric  doctrine  systematically,  but  to 
weave  it  in  with  his  lectures  in  the  form  of  hints  to 
those  who  could  profit  by  them.  Nor  is  Clement  to  be 
taken  too  seriously  when  he  represents  the  whole  con- 
tents of  the  Stromateis  as  tradition,  for  there  was  in 
his  day  a  strong  desire  to  emulate  the  anti(juity  of 
^  Eugene  de  Faye,  Clement  iV Alexcmdric. 


PRECURSORS  OF  ORIGEN  23 

})liilosophical  systems,  and  to  regard  the  form  of  truth 
arrived  at  as  permanently  iixed.  Even  then,  it  would 
seem,  there  were  ad\ocates  of  what  has  been  wittily 
termed  "  tinned  theologj'." 

From  the  necessity  of  the  situation  Clement's  teach- 
ing assumed  a  generally  upolorjetic  aspect,  and  accord- 
ingly it  is  from  the  standpoint  of  apologetics,  and  not 
from  that  of  dogma,  that  it  nnist  be  judged.^  By  the 
light  which  it  threw  upon  the  great  problems  raised  by 
philosophy  regarding  God,  the  world,  and  the  human 
soul,  Christianity  had  awakened  the  dormant  spiritual 
sense  in  vast  multitudes  of  men.  But  in  the  matter  of 
satisfying  the  spiritual  needs  of  humanity  it  found  a 
rival  claimant  in  Neoplatonism,  which  took  for  its 
religious  ideal  the  direct  apprehension  of  the  divine 
essence.  Thus,  it  was  believed,  would  the  traditional 
worship  receive  a  new  impetus,  and  the  desideratum, 
for  want  of  which  men  were  seceding  to  Christianity, 
be  supplied.  The  promoters  of  Neoplatonism  saw  that 
it'  heathenism  was  to  prevail,  it  nmst  both  get  rid  of 
its  more  jjlarino;  absurdities,  and  also  strengthen  itself 
by  a  large  accession  of  ideas,  principles,  and  rites. 
Thus  they  borrowed  whatevei'  appeared  to  them 
good  from  every  available  source.  They  contemplated 
nothing  less  than  the  introduction  of  a  universal  reli- 
gion, constructed  on  principles  so  broad  that  the  wise 
of  all  the  earth  could  adhere  to  it.  It  was  their  aim  to 
set  matters  right  between  philosophy  and  theology, 
between  doctrine  and  life,  and  to  satisfy  the  needs  of 
the  soul  on  a  scale  to  which  Christianity  could  make 
no  pretension.  Such,  then,  was  the  situation  which 
Clement  had  to  meet,  and  it  fully  explains  the  apolo- 
^  Dods,  Eramnus  and  oilier  Essays,  p.  129. 


24      ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

gctic  drift  of  his  writings  as  well  as  his  constant 
references  to  philosophy. 

Before  pronouncing  a  hasty  ju<lgnient  on  the  extent 
to  which  Clement  has  allowed  his  philosophic  bent  to 
influence  his  thcolog}'',  we  must  take  into  account  the 
character  of  his  environment.  One  of  the  dangers  of 
the  prevailing  eclecticism  was  that  it  tended  too  much 
to  speculation.  Possibly  for  a  Christian  teacher  in 
Alexandria  there  was  no  choice ;  either  the  gospel  had 
to  be  presented  in  the  light  in  which  it  was  presented 
by  Clement,  or  it  could  have  obtained  no  hearing  at 
all.  At  any  rate  he  deliberately  chose  his  method  of 
stating  the  truth,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
he  honestly  tried  to  serve  Christ  by  pleading  His 
cause  in  terms  iittcil  to  appeal  to  the  cultured  Greeks 
of  his  time. 

Although  no  systematic  theologian  in  the  modern 
sense,  Clement  may  be  said  to  have  laid  the  foundation 
of  a  true  scientific  Christian  dogmatic.  His  position 
marks  a  great  advance  upon  that  of  Justin,  who  to 
some  extent  anticipated  him.  Departing  from  the 
purely  apologetic  aim  of  that  writer,  Clement  conceived 
his  task  to  include  a  certain  positive  presentation  of 
Christian  truth  as  well.  To  the  idea  of  the  Logos  in 
particular  he  gave  a  much  fuller  and  more  definite 
content  than  Justin  did,  and  made  it  the  keystone  of 
his  religious  philosophy,  and  of  his  interpretation  of 
Christianity.  The  gospel  is  the  highest  revelation  of 
the  Logos,  who  has  given  indication  of  his  presence 
wherever  men  rise  above  the  level  of  the  beasts  and  of 
the  uncivilised  savage.  All  truth  and  goodness  are 
traced  to  the  Light  that  lighteneth  every  man  that 
Cometh  into  the  world.    This"  bold  and  joyous  thinker" 


PRECURSORS  OF  ORIGEN  25 

constructed  in  this  way  an  optimistic  theory  of  human 
history  of  a  singularly  attractive  kind,  in  wliich  the 
Saviour  is  represented  as  smiling  upon  and  nurturing 
every  root  of  beauty  and  nobleness,  of  piety  and  vs^orth, 
which  has  at  any  time  and  in  any  place  sprung  up  on 
the  soil  of  humanity.  A  place  was  thus  found  within 
the  pale  of  Christianity  for  the  whole  of  Hellenic 
culture  as  a  stage  in  the  education  of  mankind.  But 
while  the  Logos  is  the  moral  and  rational  in  every 
degree  of  evolution,  it  is  only  from  revelation  that  a 
reliable  knowledge  of  him  can  be  gained.  "  In  Christ 
he  is  the  officiating  high  priest,  and  the  blessings  he 
bestows  are  a  series  of  holy  initiations  which  alone 
contain  the  possibility  of  man's  raising  himself  to  the 
divine  life."  ^  Christianity  is  thus,  according  to  Clement, 
the  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  the  creator,  teacher,  and 
redeemer  of  men,  whose  finished  product  is  found  in 
the  man  of  true  knowledge,  the  perfect  gnostic.  "  His 
great  work,  which  has  rightly  been  called  the  boldest 
literary  undertaking  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  is 
the  first  attempt  to  use  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Church 
tradition  together  with  the  assumption  that  Christ  as 
the  Reason  of  the  world  is  the  source  of  all  truth,  as 
the  basis  of  a  presentation  of  Christianity  which  at 
once  addresses  itself  to  the  cultured  by  satisfying  the 
scientific  demand  for  a  philosophical  ethic  and  theory 
of  the  world,  and  at  the  same  time  reveals  to  the 
believer  the  rich  content  of  his  faith."  - 

It  is  impossible  here  to  enter  minutely  on  the  subject 
of  Clement's  dogmatic,  which  he  made  no  attempt  to 
construct  into  a  regular  system.     On  the  basis  of  the 

^  llaniack,  Ilislory  of  Dogma,  ii.  p.  324. 
-  Harnack,  loc,  cit. 


26      ORIGEN   AND   GREEK  THEOLOGY 

materials  scattered  throughout  his  pages  its  main  lines 
may,  however,  be  briefly  indicated. 

One  of  his  merits  is  that  he  grasps  so  firmly  tlie 
doctrine  of  the  Tj-inity.  A  "writer  who  pronounces  his 
scheme  of  doctrine  "  very  meagre  and  latitudinarian  " 
certifies  his  soundness  on  this  point.^  Distinctly  as  he 
affirms  the  doctrine  of  the  Ti'inity,  it  can  scarcely  be 
said,  however,  that  in  his  writings  this  doctrine  appears 
in  a  more  advanced  form  of  development  than  in  those 
of  his  predecessors.  God  is  inexpressible,  having  neither 
parts,  qualities,  nor  relations.  "  He  is  formless  and 
nameless,  tliough  we  sometimes  give  Him  titles  which 
are  not  to  be  taken  in  their  proper  sense, — -the  One, 
the  Good,  Intelligence  or  Existence,  or  Father,  or  God, 
or  Creator,  or  Lord  "  {Strom,  v.  12).  This  idea  of  God, 
whom  he  further  speaks  of  as  the  great  "  depth  "  or 
"abyss,"  would  hardly  be  distinguishable  from  tlie 
empty  abstraction  of  Philo  and  the  Alexandrian  Platon- 
ists,  were  it  not  for  tlie  qualifying  declaration  that  to 
the  Son  of  God  there  is  nothing  incomprehensible. 
God  is  therefore  not  absolutely,  but  only  relatively, 
incomprehensible.  It  is  owing  to  our  limitations  as 
human  beings  that  He  is  to  us  inscrutable.  Clement 
summons  an  old  poet  to  express  his  meaning — 

"  llim  .see  I  not,  for  round  about,  a  cloud 
Has  settled  ;  for  in  mortal  eyes  are  small, 
And  mortal  pnjjils — only  (lesh  and  Ijones  grow  there." 

God  is  manifested  through  the  Son,  by  whose  grace  as 
Logos  He  has  in  some  degree  been  known  to  the  nobler 
spirits  of  every  age  and  country.  In  the  New  Testanient, 
liowever.  He  is  revealed  as  a  Trinity — Father,  Son,  and 

1  Ciuniiii,L;liaiii,  Jfisi.  Thcol.  i.  p.  1.^0. 


PRECURSORS  OF  ORIGEN  27 

Holy  Spirit.  Wliilc  the  Fiithcr  is  not  knowablc,  tlic 
Son  as  tlie  mind  or  consciousness  ol'  the  Father  may 
become  the  object  of  knowledge.  After  Philo,  he 
speaks  of  the  Son  as  the  Name,  Energj'^,  Face,  etc.,  of 
God ;  but  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  there  is  an 
essential  unity,  and  prayer  may  be  offered  to  the  Son. 
Clement  is  not  less  explicit  as  to  the  coequalit}'-  and 
coeternit}^  of  the  First  and  Second  Persons  in  tlie 
Godhead.  While  his  view  of  the  relations  of  the  Third 
Person  to  the  First  and  Second  Persons  is  nowhere 
clearly  stated,  he  undoubtedly  accepts  the  distinct 
personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  "  O  mystic  marvel," 
he  exclaims,  "  the  universal  Father  is  One,  and  One 
the  universal  Word,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  one  and 
the  same  everywhere."  ^  The  Spirit  he  also  represents 
as  speaking  by  the  prophets,^  and  as  the  Sanctifier  of 
soul  and  body.^  It  is,  however,  as  Clement  is  careful 
to  explain  in  a  quotation  from  the  apostolic  Barnabas, 
not  in  essence,  but  in  power,  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
dwells  in  the  heart,  which  from  having  been  "  the 
house  of  demons  "  has  become  through  faith  the  temple 
of  God.'' 

Clement's  general  view  of  the  creation  is  based  upon 
that  of  Philo,  although  he  denies  the  pre-existence  of 
matter  and  of  the  soul.  The  creation  of  the  world 
through  the  Word  is  the  outcome  and  the  manifestation 
of  God's  eternal  goodness.  It  was  this  that  prompted 
Him  to  become  Creator  and  Father.  Man  was  the 
special  object  of  His  love,  and  as  such,  in  an  important 
sense,  the  end  of  creation.  God  communicated  to  man 
what  was  peculiar  to  Himself,  and  made  him  a  beauti- 

1  rad.  i.  6.  2  rrolrept.  i.  8. 

3  iitrom.  iv.  2,  6.  *  Strom,  v.  20. 


28      ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

fill  breathing  instrument  of  music.  "  The  Word  of 
God,  despising  tlic  lyre  and  liarp,  which  arc  hut  lifeless 
instruments,  and  having  tuned  by  the  Holy  Spirit  the 
universe,  and  especially  man, — ■\\'ho,  composed  of  body 
and  soul,  is  a  universe  in  miniature, — makes  melod}^  to 
God  on  this  instrument  of  many  tones."  ^  This  divine 
element,  imparted  to  man  by  the  Word,  constitutes 
between  him  and  God  an  essential  spiritual  atBnity 
which  has  not  been  totally  destroyed  even  by  the 
Fall. 

The  existence  of  sin  Clement  holds  to  be  sufficiently 
explained  by  the  freedom  of  the  human  will.-  Although 
God  foresaw  who  would  prove  rebellious,  they  were 
not  predestinated  to  evil ;  obedience  is  possible  to  us. 
There  is  no  incompatibility  between  grace  and  freewill, 
for  "  God's  greatest  gift  is  self-restraint."  ^  Clement 
repudiates  the  claim  of  the  disciples  of  Basilides  and 
Valeutinus  with  respect  to  their  enjoyment  of  a  natural 
advantage  in  the  shape  of  a  germ  of  superior  excellence, 
— a  claim  which  based  the  salvation  of  the  complete 
Christian,  not  upon  faith  as  the  result  of  free  choice, 
but  upon  an  arbitrary  supramundane  selection  on  the 
part  of  God.  Such  necessitarianism  would,  he  points 
out,  at  once  cancel  the  guilt  of  unbelief  by  freeing  man 
from  responsibility,  and  leave  no  room  for  repentance, 
or  forgiveness,  or  baptism.  Evil  is  the  deliberate  act 
of  man,  and  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to  any  hereditary 
taint  in  human  nature.  The  soul  is  not  begotten. 
We  fall   as   Adam    fell,   not   because   of   his   sin,  but 

^  Protrepl.  chap.  i. 

^  The  phrase  liberum  arhitrluin  is  T'l-tnllian's,  liut  it  exactly  expresses 
Clement's  meaning. 
»  mrom.  ii.  20. 


PRECURSORS  OF  ORIGEN  29 

through  our  own  lust.  Clement  refuses  to  believe  that 
the  newborn  babe,  who  has  done  nothing,  can  rest 
under  any  condemnation.  It  is  only  wilful  sin  that 
God  punishes. 

While  denying  "  original  sin,"  Clement  admits  that 
fallen  man  is  powerless  to  restore  himself  to  good. 
Here  we  need  the  help  of  Christ.  The  eternal  Word 
has  appeared  as  man  in  order  to  become  our  Teacher 
and  Saviour.  "  Lost  as  we  already  were,  He  accom- 
plished our  salwation. "  ^  It  was  the  object  of  His 
incarnation  and  death  to  deliver  us  from  the  guilt,  and 
from  the  ignorance  which  constitutes  the  power,  of  sin. 
Like  the  Alexandrians  generally,  Clement  lays  more 
stress  upon  the  latter  aspect  of  redemption  than  upon 
the  former.  The  ideas  of  atonement  and  forgiveness 
did  not  fit  in  well  with  their  favourite  belief  as  to  the 
unchanging  God.  Yet,  in  view  of  certain  statements 
contained  in  his  own  writings,  it  would  be  a  mistake 
to  say  that  he  entirely  ignores  the  sacrificial  character 
of  Christ's  work.  No  doubt  the  term  "  Lamb  of  God  " 
is  applied  to  Him  only  in  respect  of  His  innocence.  It 
is  also  true  that  Clement  fails  to  grasp  the  expiatory 
significance  of  the  Mosaic  sacrifices.  For  him  they 
simply  express  devotion  to  God  and  the  return  to 
holiness.  And  the  raisoii  d'etre  of  Christ's  sacrifice 
upon  the  cross  is  in  like  manner  to  lead  us  back  to  the 
practice  of  the  good.  Nevertheless  —  whether  con- 
sistently or  not  is  another  question — he  speaks  of  the 
Lord  being  immolated  and  bearing  the  wood  of  the 
cross  ;^  of  the  Word  as  Mediator  ;=^  and  of  Christ  as 
giving  Himself  in  sacrifice  for  us,*  as  the  expiator  of 

^  Peed.  i.  4.  -  Peed.  i.  5.  =>  Pwd.  iii.  1. 

•*  Strom.  V.  11,  vii.  3  ;  Pitd.  i.  11. 


30     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

sin,  the  Saviour,  the  Reconciler,  the  giver  of  peace.^ 
He  i'urthcr  writes:  "And  He  is  the  propitiator  for  our 
sins,  as  John  says ;  Jesus  who  heals  both  our  body  and 
soul,"  -  and  rei:»resents  Jesus  as  addressing  the  sinner 
in  these  terms  :  "  I  am  the  master  of  heavenly  wisdom  ; 
I  have  wrestled  with  death  for  thee.  I  have  abolished 
that  death  which  was  thy  due,  on  account  of  thy  sins 
and  unbelief."  3  When  all  is  said,  however,  there  is  no 
doubt  that,  in  the  general  view  of  Clement,  salvation 
hangs  not  upon  atonement,  but  upon  moral  amend- 
ment ;  not  upon  Christ's  finished  work  as  a  sacrificial 
victim  for  the  sins  of  men,  but  merely  upon  the  fact  of 
a  spiritual  transformation  wrought  in  us  by  the  Word 
as  the  Avorld's  Instructor.  He  fails,  though,  to  find 
in  such  a  position  a  solid  basis  for  man's  restoration  to 
goodness,  and  is  obliged  to  fall  back  upon  the  distinction 
of  "  First  and  Second  Repentance."  Only  for  pre- 
baptismal  sins,  i.e.  sins  committed  in  the  darkness  of 
ignorance,  is  there  a  free  pardon  in  consideration  of 
the  work  of  Christ.  He  who  has  received  forgiveness 
ought  to  sin  no  more.  Yet  God  in  his  mercy  has 
vouchsafed  a  second  repentance  for  the  transgressions 
of  believers.  These  must  be  purged  by  corrective 
discipline,  which  may  not  end  with  the  present  life,  in 
order  that  at  length  we  may  be  raised  to  the  highest 
degree  of  heavenly  glory.  Meanwhile,  those  who  have 
entered  on  the  distinctive  Christian  life  must  look 
upon  "  the  risen  Lord,  the  fountain  not  of  pardon,  but 
of  life."  As  God,  Christ  forgives  our  sins,  and  as  Man 
trains  us  not  to  sin.*  In  Clement's  view  redemption  is 
not  so  nuich  the  restoration  of  what  man  lost  by  the 

^  Protrcpt.  X.  -Pad.  iii.  12. 

"  "»/,/\'  (//)■.  .s7y//'.  xxiii.  ■*  Poxl.  i.  0. 


PRECURSORS  OF  ORIGEN  31 

Fall  as  it  is  the  grand  climax  of  human  destiny.  "The 
Word  ol'  God  became  man,  that  thou  mayest  learn 
from  man  how  man  may  become  God."^ 

As  given  to  us  at  the  first  our  reason  is  pure  and 
uncontamiuated.  But  we  need  more  than  reason  and 
Treewill  in  order  to  attain  vital  fellowship  with  God. 
These  afford  adequate  guidance  for  our  earthly  life,  but 
can  lead  us  no  higher.  The  true  Gnostic  builds  up  his 
spiritual  life  on  his  faith,  which  is  "  a  sort  of  natural 
art,"  and  contributes  to  the  process  of  learning  as  the 
earth's  productive  power  co-operates  with  the  seed  cast 
into  it.  In  the  higher  life  the  faith  of  the  ordinary 
believer  becomes  knowledge,  the  hope  and  fear  of  the 
lower  life  are  supplanted  by  love,  while  holiness,  or 
the  negative  virtue  of  abstinence  from  what  is  evil,  is 
transmuted  into  righteousness.  Man's  salvation  is  thus 
a  gradual  process.  Beginning  with  faith,  it  rises  into 
love,  and  finally  to  perfect  knowledge.  We  are  fed  by 
Christ's  body  and  blood  in  the  Eucharist,  He  becomes 
our  Light  and  our  Life,  and  we  are  led  to  "  the  moun- 
tain beloved  of  God,  not  the  subject  of  tragedies  like 
Cithajron,  but  consecrated  to  dramas  of  the  truth, — a 
mount  of  sobriety,  shaded  with  forests  of  purity."  ^ 

The  Christian  must  advance  from  faith  to  knowledge 
by  the  path  of  simple  obedience  and  rectitude.  In 
spite  of  his  inadequate  conception  of  the  doctrine  of 
redemption,  Clement's  writings  are  pervaded  by  the 
highest  spirituality  of  tone  and  feeling,  and  embody 
the  noblest  moral  ideals.  This  is  due  to  his  having 
made  the  love  of  God  the  fundamental  principle  of  his 
doctrine.  If  he  fails  to  harmonise  the  divine  love  and 
holiness,  he  nevertheless  reaches  by  a  path  of  his  own 
^  Protrept.  i.  8.  -  rivlirpt.  xii. 


the  great  gospel  truth  ot"  inaii's  reconciliation  to  God 
through  the  Word  made  tlesh,  and  with  masterly  ability 
sums  up  its  logical  and  practical  results.  For  Clement, 
Christian  morality  means  the  imitation  of  God.  This 
is  the  one  great  principle  running  through  his  often 
very  detailed  treatment  of  Christian  ethics.  By  the 
aid  of  the  incarnate  Word  we  are  enabled  to  become 
imitators  of  God.  The  true  Christian  may  engage  in 
any  honourable  occupation,  or  take  part  in  public 
affairs,  without  injury  to  the  higher  life.  There  is  no 
exceptional  virtue  in  poNerty,  celibacy,  or  martyrdom 
as  such ;  for  Christian  morality  is  not  a  matter  of 
outward  distinctions  or  circumstances,  but  of  inner 
love  to  Go<l. 

When  at  length  the  Christian  attains  to  gnosii^,  he 
no  longer  does  anything  evil,  but  has  freed  himself 
from  the  dominion  of  passion,  and  lives  according  to 
reason.  Here  we  reach  what  is  most  characteristic  in 
Clement's  teaching.  The  now  familiar  distinction  be- 
tween the  Church  visible  and  invisible  was  not  yet 
clearly  drawn,  and  Clement,  from  w'hat  he  saw  of  the 
lives  of  many  who  were  flocking  into  the  Church,  was 
driven  back  upon  Philo's  distinction  of  the  two  lives, 
for  which  he  found  corroboration  in  St.  Paul's  anti- 
thesis between  milk  and  meat  as  the  food  suited 
respectively  for  babes  and  full-growai  men.  In  the 
acquisition  of  this  saving  knowledge  Clement  leaves 
more  to  man's  unaided  powers  than  is  warranted  by 
Scripture,  but  he  was  probably  led  into  overstatement 
here  by  the  denial  on  the  part  of  the  false  Gnostics 
that  the  spiritual  destiny  of  man  is  in  any  way  con- 
tingent upon  his  OAvn  will. 

The  Church  is  the  city  of  God,  a  decorous  body 


PRECURSORS  OF  ORIGEN  33 

and  assemblage  of  men  regulated  by  the  Word.^  She 
is  the  Bride  oi'  Christ,-'  and  the  Virgin  Mother."  She 
is  one,  true,  ancient,  catholic,  apostolic.^  We  are 
bound  in  no  way  to  transgress  the  canon  of  the 
Church.^  There  is  a  wide  difference  between  the 
Church  and  "a  school"  set  up  by  heretical  sophists 
and  supported  b}'  human  arts  of  their  own  invention.^ 
Although  Clement  distinguishes  between  bishops  and 
presljyters,'^  and  calls  Peter  the  first  of  the  apostles,*^  he 
knows  nothing  of  the  claims  of  Rome  to  the  power 
of  the  keys.  He  is  not  concerned  about  the  different 
orders  of  clergy,  his  references  to  this  subject  being 
of  the  most  casual  description.  In  particular,  he  never 
alludes  to  it  in  connection  with  the  Sacraments.  For 
Clement  the  real  antitype  of  the  Old  Testament  priest 
is  the  Christian  Gnostic,  who  offers  with  a  pure  mind 
and  unswerving  abstraction  from  the  body  and  its 
passions  the  sacrifice  of  praise,  and  the  incense  of 
prayer,  upon  the  altar  of  the  congregation  of  the 
saints.  Nor  does  he  attach  importance  to  consecrated 
buildings.  "  For  it  is  not  the  place,  but  the  company 
of  the  elect,  that  I  call  the  Church."^ 

For  the  rest,  Clement  held  that  after  death  perfect 
blessedness  will  be  reached  through  a  further  process 
of  spiritual  development,  accepted  the  Pauline  doctrine 
of  a  glorified  resurrection  body,  and  allowed  the  possi- 
bility of  repentance  and  reformation  until  the  last 
day,  when  probation  would  cease.^**     He  adhered   to 

1  Strom,  iv.  26.  ^  Strom,  iii.  6. 

3  rcud.  i.  6.  •»  Strom,  vii.  17. 

'  Strom,  vii.  7.  ®  Strom,  vii.  15. 

''Peed.  iii.  12  ;  Strain,  vi.  13.  •*  Quls  div.  salv.  21. 

»  Strom,  vii.  5.  '<*  Strom,  vii.  2,  16. 

3 


34      ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

tlic  Platonic  theory  that  the  sole  object  of  punishment 
is  amendment, — a  theory  which  logically  carries  with 
it  the  final  restoration  of  all.  The  latter  doctrine, 
however,  was  not  formulated  b}^  Clement,  although 
sometimes  he  makes  a  close  approach  to  it,  as  when 
he  says :  "  For  all  things  are  arranged  with  a  view 
to  the  salvation  of  the  universe,  both  generally  and 
particularly."  ^  ]3ut  it  was  soon  to  receive  full  and 
bold  expression  in  the  writings  of  Origcn,  his  great 
successsor,  whose  master-thought  was  the  unity  under- 
lying all  phenomena  and  making  steadily  for  the  re- 
moval of  all  discord  and  evil. 

^  Strom,  vii.  2. 


CHAPTER    II 

Life  and  Character  of  Origen 

Origen  was  born  in  Egypt,  probably  at  Alexandria, 
in  or  about  the  year  185.  He  bore  the  surname 
Adamantios,^  which  has  been  supposed  by  some  to 
point  to  the  irresistible  force  ol"  his  arguments,  and 
by  others  to  his  own  diligence.  The  latter  idea 
found  further  expression  in  the  epithets  Chalcenteros 
(Man  of  brass),  applied  to  him  by  Jerome,  and 
Syntactes  {Composer),  given  him  by  others.  It  can- 
not be  inferi-ed  from  the  name  Origen  {i.e.  son  of  Or 
or  liorus,  the  Egyptian  sun-god)  that  his  parents 
became  Christians  only  after  his  birth,  for  such  names 
as  Diotrephes,  Hermas,  ApoUinaris,  etc.,  continued  for 
long  to  be  quite  customary  among  Greek  Christians. 

His  father  Lconides  was  a  prominent  member  of  the 
Christian  community  at  Alexandria,  although  the 
statement  of  Suidas  that  he  was  "  bishop "  is  not 
otherwise  corroborated.  A  man  of  means  and  culture, 
and,  perhaps,  a  professor  of  Greek  language  and 
literature,  Lconides  was  in  a  position    personally  to 

^  That  this  surname  was  self-assumed  (Epiiihanius,    Her.    Ixiv.  74) 

is,  in  view  of  his  whole  character,  highly  improbable  ;  it  is  much  more 

likely  that  it  was  given  to  him  from  his  birth  (Euscbiu.'!,  H.  E.  vi.  14)  ; 

but  it  is  possible  that  it  was  applied  to  him  only  after  his  death. 

35 


36      ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

superintend  the  education  of  his  son.  At  an  early 
age  tlie  boy  showed  unusual  talent,  and  liis  training 
both  on  the  scientilic  and  on  the  Christian  side  was 
to  his  father  a  matter  of  conscientious  care.  Drilled 
in  every  branch  of  Greek  learning  as  then  practised 
in  the  city  which  had  virtually  succeeded  Athens  as 
"  mother  of  arts  and  eloquence,"  his  naturally  acute 
mind  was  disciplined  and  developed  to  the  best 
advantage.  To  the  good  Leonides  the  moral  and 
spiritual  welfare  of  his  son  was  an  object  of  equal 
and  even  greater  solicitude.  From  his  childhood 
Origen,  like  Timothy,  learned  to  knoAV  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  and  imbibed  the  fundamental  truths  of 
Christianity  so  thoroughly  that  none  of  his  later 
speculations  could  ever  efface  them  from  his  heart. 
Daily  his  father  selected  a  portion  of  the  Bible  for 
him  to  commit  to  memory,  and  heard  him  repeat  it. 
This  was  to  the  youthful  Origen  no  uncongenial  or 
mechanical  task.  Already  he  began  to  exercise  that 
passionate  eagerness  to  discover  the  deepest  meaning 
of  the  record  of  revelation  which  distinguished  his 
riper  years.  Leonides  was  frequently  puzzled  by  his 
demands  for  a  fuller  exposition  of  passages  of  which 
the  literal  meaning  only  had  been  communicated,  and 
had  even  to  pretend  to  chide  his  over-inquisitiveness 
as  not  befitting  his  years,  while  secretly  thanking  God 
for  having  given  him  such  a  son.  He  formed  the 
habit,  it  is  said,  of  reverentially  kissing  the  bosom  of 
the  sleeping  boy,  in  the  firm  conviction  that  the  Holy 
(Spirit  had  marked  it  for  His  dwelling-place. 

Few  further  particulars  are  known  with  reference 
to  Origcn's  early  training.  That  he  came  under  the 
inlluence  of  i'antjunus,  after   the  return  of  the  latter 


LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  ORIGEN     37 

from  his  missionary  enterprise  in  India,  appears  from 
a  letter  written  to  Origen  by  Alexander,  bishop  of 
Jerusalem,  in  which  he  alludes  to  the  early  friendship 
existing  between  them  as  fellow-students.  It  is  not, 
however,  anywhere  distinctly  affirmed  that  Origen 
was  the  pupil  of  Pantoenus,  as  he  certainly  was  of 
Clement,  the  catechist  of  the  Alexandrian  Church. 
In  the  cultured  Christian  circles  of  which  these  men 
were  the  leading  ornaments  Origen  formed  an  acquaint- 
ance with  Alexander,  which  was  in  a  very  marked 
degree  to  aft'ect  his  future.  JMeanwhile  he  continued 
to  slake  his  thirst  at  the  fountains  of  knowledge.  The 
instruction  imparted  to  him  by  his  fatlier  Leonides 
was  now  supplemented  by  the  prelections  of  Clement. 
If  these  did  not  amount  to  sj^stematic  training  in 
theology,  they  at  least  discussed  the  claims  of 
Clu'istianity  as  opposed  to  paganism,  and  cleared  up 
the  relation  of  the  current  philosophies  to  revealed 
religion.  As  he  listened  to  such  a  teacher  Origen's 
splendid  thinking  faculties  must  have  been  greatly 
stimulated,  and  his  mental  horizon  vastly  enlarged. 

The  terrible  persecution  of  Christians  which  arose 
in  the  tenth  year  of  Septimius  Severus  (a.d.  20"2)  bore 
with  special  severity  upon  the  Egyptian  Church.  One 
of  the  first  victims  was  Leonides,  who  was  arrested 
and  thrown  into  prison.  Although  Origen  had  not 
then  completed  his  seventeenth  year,  he  ardently 
desired  the  martyr's  crown,^  and  was  minded  to  appear 
before  the  authorities  as  an  avowed  Christian  in  order 
that  he  might  die  along  with  his  father.  As  no 
entreaties  could  dissuade  him   from   his  purpose,  his 

^  In  view  of  Matt.  x.  23  he  soon  afterwards  relin(]iuslied  this 
ambition,  which  was  nevertheless  in  the  end  virtually  to  be  realised. 


38      ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

mother  contrived  effectually  to  defeat  it  by  the  simple 
stratagem  of  hiding  his  clothes.  Finding  liiniself  thus 
tliwartcd,  he  wrote  to  his  father  imploring  him  to 
stand  firm,  and  not  to  change  his  mind  out  of  con- 
sideration for  his  family.  Leonides  did  not  disappoint 
the  hopes  of  his  son — he  died  a  martyr;  but,  as  his 
property  was  confiscated  to  the  State,  his  widow  and 
family  were  left  destitute. 

The  eldest  of  seven  chilJron,  Origen  was  at  this 
time  hospitably  received  into  the  house  of  a  noble 
and  philanthropic  lady  of  Alexandria  who  had  em- 
braced Christianity,  although,  as  it  appeared,  she  had 
allowed  herself  to  be  moved  away  from  the  simplicity 
of  the  gospel.  A  certain  false  teacher,  Paul  of  Antioch, 
had  so  captivated  the  lady  by  his  eloquence  that  she 
adopted  him  as  her  son,  and  gave  him  permission  to 
propagate  his  Gnostic  heresies  by  means  of  lectures 
held  in  her  house.  To  these  lectures  many  of  the 
orthodox,  as  well  as  of  the  heretics,  of  the  city  re- 
sorted ;  but  Origen  held  steadily  aloof  from  them, 
positively  declining  to  hold  fellowship  with  the  Syrian 
Gnostic  by  joining  in  his  prayers.  To  have  done  so 
would  have  been  in  his  estimation  a  betrayal  of  Christ 
and  His  Church.  Origen's  action  in  this  matter  has 
often  been  thought  to  indicate  a  youthful  intolerance 
in  marked  contrast  to  the  gentleness  and  liberal- 
mindedness  of  his  later  years.  But  in  view  of  his  life- 
long uncompromising  opposition  to  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  Gnosticism,  this  seems  a  wrong  con- 
struction to  put  upon  it.  Rather  is  it  important  to 
note  that  this  steadfastness  in  clinging  to  ascertained 
truth  was  a  very  real  trait  in  his  character,  and  proved 
his  anchor  in  the  wild  sea  of  speculation  on  which  he 


LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  ORIGEN     39 

was  liiinself  afterwards  to  embark.  The  cnvironmcut 
in  which  Origen  thus  found  himself,  however,  neces- 
sarily proved  irksome  to  him.     He  keenly  felt 

"  How  salt  tlie  savour  is  of  others'  bruad, 
How  liard  the  passage,  to  descend  and  cliinl) 
By  others'  stairs."  1 

To  live  in  tlie  same  house  with  this  Gnostic  teacher, 
and  to  come  into  daily  contact  with  him,  while  con- 
strained to  repudiate  his  views  and  share  his  fellow- 
ship, constituted  for  the  high-minded  youth  a  heavy 
cross,  and  he  resolved  to  carry  it  no  longer  than  he 
could  help.  He  continued  to  prosecute  with  most 
praiseworthy  zeal  the  studies  which  he  had  begun 
under  the  direction  of  his  father,  and  his  proficiency 
in  grammar,  philology,  and  Greek  literature  soon  be- 
came a  ladder  to  independence.  He  now  stood  on  the 
threshold  of  his  great  career. 

Origen  quickly  made  his  mark  as  a  teacher.  At 
iirst  he  gave  instruction  only  in  "grammar"  and 
ancient  literature,  but,  like  Christ  Himself,  His 
servant's  faith  "  could  not  be  hid."  It  found  ex- 
pression so  often  as  he  had  occasion  to  refer  to  the 
theological  position  of  pagan  writers.  One  result  of 
this  was  that  certain  of  the  heathen  applied  to  him 
for  instruction  in  Christianity,  —  among  others,  two 
brothers,  Plutarch  and  Heraclas,  of  whom  the  former 
was  destined  to  die  a  mart^'r's  death,  while  the  latter 
was  yet  to  hold  the  bishopric  of  Alexandria.  That 
Origen  should  have  made  two  such  converts,  and  that 
many  others  of  his  pupils  should  have  been  ready  to 
follow  Plutarch's  example  and  seal  their  testimony 
'  Dante,  Parctdiso,  xvii.  5S-G0. 


40      ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

^\ith  tlu-ir  l)loo<l,  spoaks  volumes  for  his  tact  ami 
zeal.' 

But  if  Origen's  fame  as  a  teacher  brounht  him  into 
notice,  so  also  did  his  pronounced  sympathy  with  those 
who  for  Christ's  sake  suffered  martyrdom.  The  per- 
secution had  become  hotter  under  Aquila,  who  suc- 
ceeded La^tus  as  proconsul  of  Egypt.  But  apparently 
nothing  could  damp  the  ardour  of  the  youthful 
Christian  teacher.  By  attending  and  encouraging  the 
martyrs  in  their  last  moments  he  exposed  himself  to 
repeated  and  sei'ious  peril.  He  was  pelted  with  stones 
and  hunted  from  house  to  house.  It  is  related -that 
on  one  occasion  he  fell  into  the  hands  of  a  heathen 
crowd,  who  arraj^ed  him  in  the  vestments  of  a  priest 
of  Serapis,  compelled  him  to  stand  with  shorn  head 
upon  the  steps  of  the  temple,  and  ordered  him  to 
distribute  palm-twigs,  according  to  use  and  wont,  to 
those  who  entered,  in  order  tliat  they  might  lay  them 
upon  the  altar  of  the  god.  ]'>ut  while  doing  what  was 
so  imperiously  required  of  him,  Origen  cried  out  in 
clear  and  resolute  tones :  "  Receive  not  the  idol's  palm, 
but  the  palm  of  Christ."  Nevertheless  in  God's  great 
providence  he  was  marvellously  preserved  from  hurt. 

The  persecution  had  practically  obliterated  the  Cate- 
chetical School,  whose  teachers,  Clement  included,  liad 
sought  safety  in  llight,  although  their  action  appears 
to  have  been  dictated  by  a  sense  of  duty,  and  not  by 
cowardly  fear.  Meanwhile  Origen's  intrepid  devotion 
on  behalf  of  the  martyrs  drew  forth  the  admiration  of 
his  pupils,  and  attracted  to  his  lectures  some  even  of 

^  Euseliiiis  inciitioiis  I13'  name  six  of  liis  converts  wlio  tlicil  a  inaitji's 
deatli. 

-  Ej)il>lianius,  JJar.  \xiv.  1. 


LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  ORIGEN     41 

the  philosophically  cultured  heathen.  Although  but  a 
stripling  of  seventeen,  lie  had  by  reason  of  his  literary 
attainments  and  his  Christian  zeal  already  won  for 
himself  a  front-rank  place  in  the  Egyptian  Church. 
This  was  recognised  by  Demetrius,  bishop  of  Alex- 
andria, who  now  appointed  him  to  the  oiSce  of  teacher 
in  the  Catechetical  School.  Nor  did  Origen  shrink 
from  tilling  the  post  of  eminence  in  the  hour  of  danger. 
]\Ienaced  at  every  turn  by  the  emissaries  of  a  now  in- 
tolerant paganism,  he  calmly  pursued  his  course, 
gathering  and  imparting  knowledge  with  a  zeal  that 
knew  no  respite,  and  inspiring  the  hearts  of  his 
hearers,  who  were  older  than  himself,  with  his  own 
unconquerable  devotion  to  truth. 

That  Demetrius  had  made  a  wise  choice  the  result 
showed.  In  spite  of  the  persecution,  students  flocked 
in  increasing  numbers  to  sit  at  the  feet  of  Origen ; 
and  so  important  did  he  deem  his  new  work  of 
catechetical  instruction  that  he  discontinued  his 
literary  classes  in  order  to  give  his  whole  time  and 
strength  to  it.  He  insisted  also  on  making  it  a 
labour  of  love,  declining  to  take  fees  as  formerly. 
Resolved  to  maintain  his  independence,  and  to  keep 
himself  free  from  all  worldly  distractions,  he  fell  upon 
an  ingenious  scheme  of  self-endowment.  By  selling 
to  a  literary  collector  his  manuscripts  of  the  Greek 
classics — many  of  them  carefully  transcribed  by  his 
own  hand — in  consideration  of  a  pension  of  four  obols 
(about  tivepence)  a  day,  he  solved  the  problem  of  his^ 
maintenance.  It  was  a  miserable  pittance,  but  he 
made  it  suffice.  Even  so  he  trembled  as  he  repeated 
the  words :  "  He  that  forsaketh  not  all  that  he  hath, 
cannot  be  My  disciple."     The  very  existence  of  such  a 


42      ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

man  was  a  tower  of  strcngtli  to  Christianity ;  for  of 
liiin  it  was  literally  true,  as  Eusebius  says,  tliat  "he 
tau_L;ht  as  lie  lived,  and  lived  as  he  taught." 

At  this  period  the  Gra}eo-Ronian  world,  weary  of  an 
enervating  self-indulgence,  turned  wistfully  from  the 
refinements  of  Epicureanism  to  the  stern  renunciations 
of  Stoicism,  with  the  remai-kablc  result  tliat  Jewish 
theosoph}^  the  later  Platonism,  and  Christianity  w^ere 
all  looking  in  the  direction  of  self-denial  as  the  key  to 
the  deepest  philosophy  of  life.  Thus  early,  through 
the  high  value  set  upon  outward  privations  as  a 
means  of  sanctification,  was  the  germ  of  monasticism 
planted  in  the  Church.  And  in  this  respect  Origen 
fully  imbibed  the  spirit  of  the  age.  By  the  mortifica- 
tion of  the  flesh  he  earnestly  endeavoured  to  realise 
the  Christian  ideal.  Than  liis  a  life  of  more  rigid 
asceticism,  combined  with  severe  application  to  study, 
was  probably  never  lived.  Wine  and  luxuries  in 
general  he  abjured.  He  allowed  himself  but  little 
food,  and  practised  frequent  fasting.  After  toiling  in 
the  school  by  day,  he  gave  himself  to  the  investigation 
of  the  Scriptures  by  night,  sleeping  but  for  a  short 
time,  and  that  upon  the  bare  ground.  Only  his 
"  brazen  "  constitution  prevented  his  health  from  being 
entirely  undermined,  and  even  as  it  wan  he  had  sown 
the  seeds  of  future  bodily  trouble. 

But  Oi'igen's  deepest  motive  for  self-sacrifice  prob- 
ably lay  in  the  literal istic  interpretation  of  Holy 
Scripture  which  at  this  peiiod  commended  itself  to 
him.  In  view  of  the  Saviour's  precept  not  to  have 
two  coats  or  to  wear  shoes,  he  restricted  himself  to  a 
single  garment,  and  went  barefooted  for  years.  Eager 
to  mortify  the  flesh,  to  raise  himself  above  suspicion  in 


LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  ORIGEN     43 

his  relations  witli  ^^outhful  catcclminons  of  the  other 
sex,  and  to  carry  out  wliat  in  connuou  with  many 
Christians  oi'  liis  time  he  mistakenly  considered  to  bo 
the  injunction  of  our  Lord  (Matt.  xix.  12),  he  also 
rashly  perpetrated  an  act  of  self-mutilation,  which  he 
afterwards  regretted,  and  which  was  yet  adversely  to 
influence  his  future.  That  he  could  have  done  this 
has  been  declared  incredible,^  although  upon  in- 
sufficient grounds.  The  fact  is  well  attested.  More- 
over, the  practice  in  question  was  far  from  uncommon 
in  the  ancient  world.  Origen  seems  to  have  been 
much  disconcerted  when  his  indiscretion  became 
publicly  known,  possibly  because,  wittingly  or  un- 
wittingly, he  had  run  counter  to  the  conscience,  if 
not  even  to  the  rule,  of  the  Church.  Bishop  Demetrius, 
however,  recognising  the  purity  of  his  motives,  treated 
him  sympathetically,  and  encouraged  him  to  throw 
himself  heartily  into  the  work  of  the  Catechetical 
School.  But  this  did  not,  apparently,  prevent  him 
from  subsequently  using  this  act  of  undisciplined  zeal 
as  a  handle  ao'ainst  Orio;en. 

From  this  period,  and  in  connection  perchance  with 
this  faux  pa.<^,  some  would  date  the  influence  of  the 
Platonic  philosophy  upon  Origen's  thought.  But  there 
is  no  evidence  of  his  having  undergone  a  sudden  conver- 
sion of  this  sort,  although  some  uncertainty  does  obtain 
as  to  the  precise  circumstances  under  which  he  became 
indoctrinated  with  the  spirit  of  the  Greek  master. 
His  own  account  of  the  matter  is  interesting  so  far  as 
it  goes,  but  it  does  not  clear  up  everything.  In  a 
letter  written  in  defence  of  his  position  as  a  student  of 
Greek  philosophy,  he  says :  "  When  I  had  devoted 
^  E.fjf.  by  Schnitzer  and  Baiir. 


44      ORIGEN   AND   GREEK  THEOLOGY 

niy.self  entirely  to  theolo(,^y,  uiid  the  i'anie  of  my  skill 
in  that  department  began  to  be  noised  abroad,  and 
sometimes  heretics,  sometimes  those  who  had  studied 
the  Greek  sciences,  and  philosophy  in  particular,  came 
to  visit  me,  I  deemed  it  advisable  to  investigate  both 
the  doctrinal  views  o£  the  heretics  and  what  the  phil- 
osophers claimed  to  know  of  the  truth."  He  then  goes 
on  to  say  that  Pantaenus  and  Heraclas  were  his  pre- 
cursors in  this  field,  and  that  the  latter  had  already 
been  five  years  in  attendance  upon  "the  teacher"  of 
the  philosophical  sciences  before  he  himself  began  to 
hear  his  lectures.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the 
reference  is  to  Ammonius  Saccas,^  the  founder  of 
Neoplatonism,  who  was  then  a  professor  at  Alex- 
andria, and  at  the  zenith  of  his  reputation.  Porphyr}^ 
indeed,  definitely  calls  Origen  a  pupil  of  Ammonius,^ 
and  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  under  the  guidance 
of  this  teacher  his  philosophical  studies  were  perfected 
and  matured.  The  elements  of  such  knowledge  may 
well  have  been  already  acquired  by  him  under  the 
tuition  of  Clement,  and  the  widening  horizon  and 
fellowship  of  life  in  a  learned   centre   such   as  Alex- 

'  Euseb.  H.  E.  vi.  19.  "When  Origen  says  lie  found  Heraclas  irapa 
"tco  5t5acr/cdXw"  twc  if>i\oab<po)v  fxaOrjfxd.Tui',  this  is  virtually  to  name 
Ammonius,  whose  pre-eminence  among  the  then  philosophers  of 
Alexanilria  was  acknowledged. 

^'AKpodTTis  'Afxixuvlov  [aj).  Eusel).  H.  E.  vi.  19).  It  is  certainly 
strange  that  Porphyry  should  represent  Origen  as  being  of  heathen 
extraction,  and  many  have  concluded  that  it  is  not  the  Cliristian 
Origen  at  all  that  he  refers  to.  So,  e.g.,  Bigg,  The  Christian  P/afonists, 
etc.,  p.  120,  and  Denis,  who  thinks  this  hypothesis  has  been  adopted 
".sans  raisons  sulhsantes"  {Dc  la  I'hilos.  d'Oriyine,  p.  3).  liut  if 
Porphyry  was  born  c.  233,  aiid  Origen  died  c.  2;j1,  the  possibility  of 
thi-ir  l)eing  acquainted  must  lie  admitted.  According  to  Porjihyry,  they 
met  in  Tyre.     Tiiis  witness  is  accepted  by  Ttedepeniiing  and  Neander. 


LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  ORIGEN     45 

andria  must  have  led  hiin  to  desire  deeper  draughts 
I'rom  this  -well.  The  necessity  of  meeting  on  their 
own  ground  the  philosophers  and  heretics  whom  he 
mentions,  was  only  the  outward  occasion  for  devoting 
himself  to  a  more  tliorough  prosecution  of  a  line  of 
study  that  must  all  along  have  had  for  him  a  peculiar 
charm.  Even  before  he  attached  himself  to  the 
Philosophical  School,  he  had  read  the  works  of  such 
celebrated  philosophers  as  Kronius  and  Numenius, 
Moderatus  and  Nicomachus.  And  although  for  a 
time,  owing  to  absorption  in  his  duties  as  catcchist, 
and  also,  perhaps,  to  the  advisability  of  refraining 
from  openly  receiving  instruction  from  a  heathen 
philosopher  until  the  example  of  Heraclas  and  others 
had  shown  that  even  a  Christian  might  profit  by  the 
teaching  of  a  non-Christian,  his  philosophical  studies 
had  been  to  a  great  extent  suspended,  he  naturally 
availed  himself  of  the  opportunity  which  at  length 
presented  itself.  But  in  all  this  there  is  nothing  to 
justify  the  assumption  that  about  the  time  when  he 
began  to  attend  the  Philosophical  .School,  i.e.  when 
nearly  thirty  years  of  age,  his  whole  theological 
stajidpoint  underwent  a  complete  change.^  E(]ually 
unfounded  is  the  opinion,  already  rejected  by  Eusebius, 
that  he  was  thoroughly  versed  in  the  various  branches 
of  secular  learning  prior  to  the  commencement  of  his 
studies  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures.-  If  he  now  gradu- 
ated, so  to  speak,  in  Greek  philosophy  and  culture, 
this  was  simply  the  logical  outcome  of  his  early 
education,  his  natural  bent,  his  position  as  a  Christian 
teacher  and  apologist,  and  his  environment.  Of  all 
the  different  philosophical  systems  with  which  he 
^  Xcauder,  Church  Hist.  ii.  p.  496.  -  Sclmitzcr,  Baxir. 


46      ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

miisi  luivc  boconic  aciiuaintcd,  it  was  riatoiiism,  in 
the  new  form  wliicli  it  had  assumed,  tliat  alone 
exercised  a  deep  and  histinL,^  influence  on  his  j^eneral 
standpoint  and  mode  of  thought.  He  was  attracted 
to  it  partly  by  liis  natural  aflinities  for  its  mystic  and 
ascetic  trend,  and  partly  by  the  many  aj^proximately 
Christian  elements  by  which  it  was  characterised. 
Needless  to  say,  his  familiarity  with  the  speculations 
of  philosophy  was  the  root  from  which  sprang  most  of 
the  "heresies"  which  continued  to  agitate  the  Church 
for  quite  two  centuries  after  his  death. 

On  the  death  of  Severus  in  211  the  persecution 
ceased,  and  Origcn,  who  valued  Church  fellowship, 
took  advantage  of  the  opportunity  thus  offered  of 
visiting  Rome,  in  order  to  make  the  ac(|uaintance  of 
the  members  and  teachers  of  the  metropolitan  Churcli. 
This  journey  w^as  made  during  tlie  papacy  of 
Zephyrinus  (201-218),  probably  in  the  iirst  year  (^f 
the  reign  of  Caracalla,  and  certainly  before  Origen 
w^as  thirty  years  of  age.  Very  soon  he  returned  to 
Alexandria,  apparently  w^itli  the  intention  of  devoting 
liimself  absolutely  to  study  ;  but  at  the  urgent  request 
of  Demetrius  he  resumed  Ids  catechetical  duties.  As, 
however,  the  number  of  his  students,  pagan  as  well  as 
Christian,  continued  largely  to  increase,  he  handed 
over  the  juniors  to  his  accomplished  friend  lleraclas, 
and  charged  himself  with  the  instruction  of  the  more 
advanced  pupils.  Relieved  thus  of  a  part  of  his 
labours  in  the  Catechetical  School,  Origen  now  applied 
himself  with  indomitable  energy  to  the  exegesis  of 
Scripture,  and  at  the  same  time  endeavoured  to 
acquire  a  competent  knowledge  of  Hebrew  so  as  to 
(pialify  himself  for  reading  the  Old  Testament  in  the 


LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  ORIGEN     47 

orio'inal.  Ilis  proficiency  in  iliis  language  appears, 
liowcver,  until  recently,  to  have  been  overrated.  No- 
where docs  he  himself  claim  to  have  a  profound  com- 
prehension of  it ;  on  the  contrary,  he  confesses  his  ignor- 
ance upon  some  points,  and  states  that  he  was  in  the 
habit  of  referring  his  difficulties  to  Jewish  proselytes.^ 
At  the  same  time  the  extant  fragments  of  his  great 
work,  the  Hcxapla,  show  that  he  had  no  mean  acquaint- 
ance with  the  traditional  usage  of  the  language,  and 
beyond  this  Hebrew  scholarship  then  scarcely  went. 

About  this  time  Origen  formed  a  fast  friendship 
with  Ambrosius,  a  rich  and  intelligent  Alexandrian 
who  had  previously  attached  himself  to  one  of  the 
(inostic  sects,  but  who  now  through  Origen's  teaching 
embraced  the  orthodox  faith,  and  found  the  true 
('jnosln  which  he  had  earnestly  been  seeking.  The 
formation  of  this  tie  was  a  fortunate  thing  for  Origen, 
and  still  more  so  for  biblical  science.  The  estimation 
in  which  Ambrosius  held  the  ability  and  scholarship 
of  his  friend  was  equalled  only  by  the  persistent  zeal 
with  which  he  spurred  him  on  to  the  exercise  of  his 
literary  gifts,  and  by  the  generosity  with  which  he 
defrayed  the  costs  of  purchasing  manuscripts  for 
collation,  as  well  as  of  the  transcription  and  publica- 
tion of  his  own  exegetical  and  theological  writings. 
He  also  furnished  him  with  seven  (or  more  if  neces- 
sary) expert  scribes,  who  wrote  by  turn  to  his 
dictation,  and  with  an  equal  number  of  skilled  cali- 
graphists,  who  multiplied  copies  of  his  works.  From 
this  time  his  literary  labours  assumed  Herculean 
proportions.  In  a  letter  to  a  friend  he  says :  "  The 
work  of  correction  leaves  us  no  time  for  supper,  or 
^  Dc  Priucijtiiit,  i.  5. 


48      ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

after  supper  for  exercise  and  repose.  Even  at  these 
times  we  are  compelled  to  debate  questions  of  inter- 
pretation and  to  emend  MSS.  Even  tlie  nij^ht  cannot 
be  given  up  altogether  to  the  needful  refreshment  of 
sleep,  for  our  discussions  extend  far  into  the  evening. 
I  say  nothing  about  our  morning  labour,  continued 
from  dawn  to  the  ninth  or  tenth  hour,  for  all  earnest 
students  devote  this  time  to  the  study  of  the  Scrip- 
tures and  reading."  Small  wonder  that  Origen  called 
Ambrosius  his  "  taskmaster."  ^  Yet  for  one  of  his 
scholarly  instincts  and  Christian  devotion  tliose  must 
have  been  crowded  years  of  glorious  life,  perhaps  the 
happiest  he  ever  knew.'^  Tiie  literary  output  secured 
was  enormous,  although  its  quality  must  necessarily 
have  suffered.  That  Origen  should  have  produced 
such  workmanship  as  he  did  under  conditions  so 
adverse,  leads  one  to  wonder  what  he  might  have 
accomplished  if,  instead  of  composing  under  this 
high-pressure  system,  he  had  been  able  to  command 
adequate  leisure.  The  object,  however,  wliieli  his 
"  taskmaster "  and  himself  had  in  view  in  publishing 
the  results  of  his  exegetical  and  theological  studies 
was  not  line  writing,  Ijut  the  checkmating  of  the 
Gnostics,  who  "  under  cover  of  the  gnosis  set  them- 
selves against  God's  holy  Church."^ 

^  'EpyodnoKT-qs. 

-  "There  was  something  beautiful  and  noble  in  the  association  of  these 
two  men,  of  whom  the  one  placed  all  his  fortune  and  all  his  interest  at 
the  service  of  truth,  and  the  other  consecrated  to  it  all  his  genius. 
The  house  of  Ambrose  became  a  sort  of  scientific  and  Christian 
monastery,  where  zeal  alone  imposed  severe  regulations,  which  were 
freely  accepted  and  joyfully  observed.  It  was  a  sort  of  forosliadowing 
of  Port-Royal "  (Pressense,  Ear/]/  Vmrs,  etc.,  ii.  p.  305). 

^  I/i  Juann.  toni.  v. 


LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  ORIGEN     49 

By  this  time  Origen  had  made  a  name  I'oi-  himself 
far  beyond  the  confines  of  his  native  city.  The 
governor  of  the  Roman  province  of  Arabia  wrote  to 
Bishop  Demetrius  and  to  the  prefect  of  Egypt,  re- 
questing that  the  great  Alexandrian  teacher  sliould 
be  sent  to  confer  with  liim,  presumably  on  matters 
spiritual.  It  was  perhaps  on  this  journey,  which 
involved  only  a  short  absence  from  the  scene  of  his 
literary  activities,  that  he  heard  Ilippolytus  preach.^ 
An  even  more  flattering  invitation  came  to  him  from 
Julia  Mamma3a,  mother  of  the  emperor  Alexander 
Severus,  who  was  then  at  Antioch.  This  noble  lady, 
of  Syrian  extraction,  and  interested  perhaps  in  Chris- 
tianity from  her  early  days,  desired  to  become 
acquainted  with  the  religious  philosophy  of  the  most 
celebrated  Christian  teacher  of  the  age.  A  military 
escort  was  sent  to  conduct  Origen  from  Alexandria  to 
Antioch.  Here  he  found  himself  at  a  court  where,  if 
there  was  no  disposition  to  proscribe,  there  was  just  as 
little  to  espouse,  any  particular  form  of  religious  be- 
lief. According  to  Eusebius,  he  abode  for  some  time 
at  the  royal  palace,  and  "  after  bearing  powerful  testi- 
mony to  the  glory  of  the  Lord  and  the  worth  of  divine 
instruction,  hastened  back  to  his  accustomed  studies." 

In  A.D.  216  Origen  appears  again  to  have  left  Egypt, 
not  for  scientific  or  religious  objects,  but  to  escajoe  the 
fury  of  the  emperor  Caracalla,  who,  stung  by  some 
sarcastic  stanzas  respecting  the  base  murder  of  his 
brother  Geta,  and  believing  them  to  have  emanated 
from  Alexandria,  arrived  there  in  that  year  with  an 
army,  and  massacred  thousands  of  the  inhabitants.  As 
a  prominent  figure  in  the  literary  life  of  the  city, 
1  Jerome,  Catal.  c.  Gl. 


50      ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

Oi'ijjfen  deemed  it  prudent  to  remove  to  safer  quarters 
in  Palestine.  There  he  was  cordially  welcomed  b}?^  his 
oM  friend  Alexander,  l^sliop  of  Jerusalem,  and  subse- 
quently by  Tlieoktistus,  bishop  of  Ca\sarea,  an'Iid  jointly 
invited  him  to  give  expositor}'  lectures  in  tlieir  churches. 
In  this  proposal,  although  as  yet  a  layman,  Origen 
acquiesced,  to  the  no  small  displeasure,  however,  of  his 
own  bishop  Demetrius,  who,  besides  being  a  "  high  " 
Churchman,  was  growing  jealous  of  his  gifted  catechist. 
The  Palestinian  bishops  were  able  to  plead  precedents 
for  what  they  had  done ;  but  the  usage  of  the  Egyptian 
Church  differed  from  that  of  the  Palestinian  with 
respect  to  the  point  at  issue,  and  Demetrius,  declaring 
it  to  be  an  unheard  of  innovation  "  that  laymen  should 
deliver  discourses  in  the  presence  of  the  bishops," 
ordered  the  immediate  return  of  Origen  to  Alexandria. 
The  latter  loyally  obeyed  the  summons,  and  once  more 
took  up  with  zeal  his  labours  as  teacher  and  student. 
During  this  journey  to  Palestine  he  is  said  to  have 
discovered  in  a  wine  jar  at  Jericho  a  translation  of  the 
Old  Testament,  which  he  embodied  in  his  Hexapla} 

Origen's  next  journey  was  into  Greece,  and  involved 
two  years'  absence  from  Alexandria  (228-230).  He 
went  in  response  to  the  call  of  the  heresy-distressed 
Church  of  Achaia,  apparently  to  act  the  part  of  peace- 
maker, and  armed  with  written  credentials  from  his 
bishop.  His  route  lay  through  Palestine,  and  at 
Cfesarea  he  was  ordained  a  presbyter  by  the  fi'iendly 
bishops  of  those  parts.  It  is  probable  that  he  desired 
prosbyterial  status  in  view  of  the  difficult  task  await- 
ing him  in  Greece,  while  on  their  part  they  may  have 
thought  it  well  to  obviate  all  risk  of  further  rebukes 
'  Presumably  the  Editio  Quinta. 


LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  ORIGEN     51 

from  Demetrius  by  liceusing  him  to  preach.  But  if 
their  former  attitude  towards  Origen  had  caused  some 
coohicss  between  the  hitter  and  liis  own  bishop 
Demetrius,  the  step  now  taken  was  yet  to  bring  about 
an  open  rupture.  IMeanwhile  Origen  })ursued  his 
journey,  carried  ofK  the  honours  at  a  public  disputation 
in  Athens,  and  traxelled  back  to  Alexandria  by  way  of 
Ephesus  and  Antioch.  At  Epliesus  he  appears  to  have 
taken  part  in  a  conference  with  a  view  to  settling 
disputed  points  of  doctrine,  and  wlierever  he  went  he 
evidently  exercised  a  "  sort  of  moral  epi.scopac}'." 

To  this  latter  circumstance,  far  more  than  to  the 
fact  of  his  supremacy  as  a  theologian,  is  to  be  ascribed 
the  jealousy  of  Bishop  Demetrius,  which,  in  conjunction 
with  the  long-cherished  dislike  of  the  more  narrow- 
minded  section  of  the  Church,  was  now  to  drive  him 
from  Alexandria.  In  that  capital  of  learning  he  had 
for  nearly  a  generation  been  a  popular  favourite,  but 
on  returning  from  this  tour  he  found  himself  in  a 
changed  atmosphere.  "  Had  Origen  been  transported 
from  his  study  in  Alexandria  to  tlie  deck  of  a  trireme 
in  the  Bay  of  Bi.scay,  the  contrast  could  not  have  been 
more  complete.  So  eft'ectually  had  the  thoi-ns  been 
fixed  in  his  nest  during  his  absence,  that  a  residence  in 
his  native  city  was  no  longer  possible."  ^  Demetrius 
had  "nursed  his  wrath  to  keep  it  warm"  against  his 
return,  and  Origen,  fully  gauging  the  situation,  volun- 
tarily left  the  city  (231).  With  such  a  record  as  he 
had  behind  him,  with  his  unequalled  ability,  and  with 
such  powerful  friends  as  the  bishops  who  had  ordained 
him,  Origen  might  have  become  the  leader  of  a  great 
party,  and  fought  Demetrius  on  equal  terms,  had  he  so 
^  R.  A.  Vaughan,  Essays  and  Remains,  i,  p.  17. 


5  2      ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

chosen.  But  he  abhorred  scliism,  and  ^\■ilh  noble 
Christian  unselfishness  counted  no  sacrifice  too  great 
in  order  to  maintain  the  unity  of  Christ's  Church. 
Not  waitint^  for  any  formal  sentence  of  deprivation,  he 
quietly  took  leave  of  the  place  that  was  dearer  to  him 
than  any  other  on  earth,  never,  as  it  chanced,  to  set 
foot  in  it  again.  "  Great  even  fi-om  liis  cradle,"  as 
Jerome  says,  Origen  never  showed  liimsclf  greater 
than  at  this  critical  juncture  in  his  career. 

This  conciliatory  action  did  not  prevent  Demetrius 
from  pressing  matters  to  the  {juick  as  regards  his 
quondam  catechist.  In  hot  liaste  he  convened  a  synod 
of  Egyptian  bishops  and  presbyters,  at  wliich  it  was 
resolved  to  exclude  him  from  the  Alexandrian  Church 
as  one  unworthy  to  fill  the  teacher's  office.  Origen 
was  perhaps  tlie  first  illustrious  teacher — alas !  that  he 
should  not  also  have  been  the  last — to  be  cast  oft"  by 
the  Church  he  loved,  in  order  "to  teach  the  world  how 
much  it  costs  to  serve  steadfastly  the  cause  of  liberty." 
But  even  so  the  wounded  vanity  and  hierarchical  pride 
of  the  Alexandrian  bishop  were  not  sufficient!}^  appeased, 
and  at  a  second  synod,  attended  b}^  bishops  only, 
Origen's  deposition  from  the  rank  of  presbyter  was 
decreed.  This  decision,  whicli  appears  to  have  been 
based  on  his  alleged  promulgation  of  heretical  doctrines,^ 

*  According  to  Jerome  {hi  Eiifiii.  ii.  18),  liis  writings  were  miich 
corrupted  even  during  his  lifetime,  wliile  the  zeal  of  Ambrosius  had 
outrun  his  discretion  in  the  matter  of  publishing  certain  things  which 
were  never  meant  to  be  given  to  the  world  (Jcr.  Epist.  65).  But  even  in 
his  (already  published)  Dc  Princijnis  heterodox  teaching  might  have 
been  detected,  and  there  may  have  been  some  justification  in  fact  for 
the  old  monkish  e}iit.iph  upon  Origen — 

"Sola  mihi  casum  irepl  dpx^i'  dicta  deilcrunt. 
His  me  collectis  undiipie  tela  ju'emunt." 


LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  ORIGEN      53 

and  possibly  also  on  his  self- mutilation,  was  inti- 
mated by  circular  letter  to  the  foreign  Churches,  and 
homologated — so  inlluential  was  the  Alexandrian  See 
— by  all  of  them  except  those  in  Palestine,  Phoenicia, 
Arabia,  Greece,  and  perhaps  Cappadocia.  Rome,  in 
particular,  was  ready  to  join  in  the  condeuuiation  ;  and 
though,  according  to  some  accounts,  Origen  afterwards 
wrote  to  the  Roman  bishop  Fabian,  he  met  with  no 
favourable  response.  His  old  friend  Heraclas  is  said 
to  have  opposed  him.  Even  a  rumour  that  he  had 
become  an  apostate  found  currency.  This  would  seem 
to  indicate  that  the  only  real  charge  against  Origen 
was  the  irregularity  of  his  ordination,  and  that  every- 
thin<jc  in  his  life  or  writino-s  that  was  fitted  to  damacje 
him  was  raked  up  to  justify  the  severe  measures  talcen 
against  him.  Unfortunately,  owing  to  the  loss  in 
great  part  of  a  treatise  written  by  Pamphilus  and 
Eusebius  in  defence  of  Origen,  and  containing  full 
details  of  all  these  proceedings,  our  information  on  the 
subject  is  meagre.  This  circumstance,  and  the  some- 
what fluid  condition  of  Church  law  and  discipline  that 
then  obtained,  render  it  difficult  to  adjudicate  in  this 
quarrel.  Very  possibly,  as  Redcpenning  suggests, 
Origen  may  have  believed  himself  within  his  rights, 
while  Demetrius  may  also  have  considered  it  his  duty 
to  interfere.  But  if  both  were  to  some  extent  in  the 
right,  both  were  also  in  the  wrong.  For  Origen's 
ordination  was  "  undoubtedly  an  infringement  of  the 
rights  of  tlie  Alexandrian  bishop ;  at  the  same  time  it 
was  simply  a  piece  of  spite  on  the  part  of  the  latter 
that  had  kept  Origen  so  long  without  any  ecclesiastical 
consecration."  ^ 

^  Ilarnack,  art.  "  Ori^eu  "  in  Ency.  llrit. 


54      ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

This  episode,  it  may  i'urthcr  be  noted,  synclironiscs 
with  Origeii's  final  emancipation  from  the  bondage  of 
the  letter,  and  was  followed  within  a  3'ear  by  the  death 
of  Demetrius  and  the  appointment  of  Heraclas  as  his 
successor.  That  Heraclas  took  an  active  part  in  the 
banishment  of  Origen  is  stated  by  Gennadius  and 
others,  but  may  really  have  been  an  inference  from 
the  fact  that  he  succeeded  Demetrius.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  does  seem  strange  that  under  the  reijiine  of 
his  former  friend,  pupil,  and  colleague,  nothing  should 
have  been  done  to  revoke  the  sentence  against  Origen  ; 
but  the  Eg3^ptian  prelates  had  probably  gone  too  far 
to  think  of  rescinding  their  former  resolution. 

Origen  made  his  new  home  at  Csesarea,  in  Palestine. 
From  several  points  of  view  this  was  a  happy  choice. 
It  brought  him  within  easy  reach  of  the  scenes  associ- 
ated with  Jesus,  His  disciples,  and  the  prophets.  It 
was  the  centre  of  the  civilised  world,  and  therefore  a 
vantage-ground  from  Avhich  his  influence  could  be 
widely  felt.  In  some  respects  also  this  new  field  of 
activity  closely  resembled  that  which  he  had  left.  As 
the  highly  favoured  embodiment  of  the  splendid  con- 
ceptions of  Herod  the  Great,  CfBsarea  was  exceptionally 
rich  in  all  the  adjuncts  of  culture.  Although  no  change 
of  circumstances  could  have  seriously  aflfccted  Origen's 
innate  love  of  scientific  investigation,  or  his  indefatig- 
able devotion  to  literature,  we  may  believe  tliat  such 
congenial  surroundings  were  helpful  to  hini.  It  had 
been  a  great  wrench  for  him  to  sever  the  ties  that 
bound  him  to  Alexandria,  and  his  work  had  been 
rendered  almost  impossible  by  the  tumult  of  conflicting 
emotions  thereby  occasioned.  "  I  have  been  enabled," 
he  says,  "  to  reach  my  fifth  volume  on  the  Gospel  of 


LIFE  AND  CHARACTER   OF  ORIGEN      55 

Jolm,  although  the  storm  raised  against  me  at  Alexandria 
threatened  to  hinder ;  but  Jesus  spoke  with  authority 
to  the  floods  and  to  the  sea."  ^  At  CiXisarea  he  i'ound  a 
luiven  of  rest,  or  at  least  a  quiet  anchorage;  but  it 
furnished  him  with  more  than  shelter.  Troops  of 
steadfast  friends  gathered  I'ound  him,  and  showeretl 
upon  him  every  token  of  veneration  and  honour.  In 
the  warm  glow  of  this  friendly  sunshine  his  energies 
rc\ivtHl.  Besides  preaching  daily,  he  continued  to  toil 
at  his  Hexapla,  and  at  his  exegetical  commentaries  on 
the  books  of  the  Bible.  The  greatest  hindrance  he 
had  to  contend  with  was  the  temporary  lack  of  short- 
hand writers.  His  attainments  enabled  him  to  give 
systematic  instruction  in  all  branches  of  knowledge  ; 
and  such  was  his  reputation  in  the  literary,  scientific, 
and  theological  world,  that  in  a  short  time,  and  more 
by  the  sheer  force  of  his  own  personality  than  by  the 
countenance  he  received  from  the  emperor  Philip  the 
Arabian,  he  established  in  Ca3sarea  a  theological  school 
whose  fame  rivalled  that  of  Alexandria  itself. 

As  Demetrius  attempted  by  letter  to  obtain  recogni- 
tion in  Ca3sarea  for  Origen's  degradation  from  the 
office  of  presbyter,  and  set  in  motion  against  him  "  all 
the  winds  of  malice  in  Egypt,"  the  latter  wrote  to 
friends  in  Alexandria  in  vindication  of  his  orthodoxy, 
which  seems  also  to  have  been  impugned.  In  particular, 
he  exposes  the  falsification  of  the  record  of  his  dispu- 
tation with  Candidus  the  Valentinian,  denies  having 
ever  asserted   the  future  salvation  of  the  devil,^  and 

^  In  Joint  II.  vi.  1. 

-  Although  the  ultimate  salvation  of  the  devil  is  undoubtedly  an 
articlo  in  the  Christian  philosophy  of  Origen,  he  was  entitled  to  deny 
the  statement  in  the  form  in  which  it  was  quoted  against  him.    Candidus 


56      ORIGEr^  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

complains  of  a  forced  document  purporting  to  give  an 
account  of  a  disputation  of  his  with  a  lieretic  which 
never  came  oft"  at  all.  He  also  quotes  certain  passages 
from  the  prophets  which  deprecate  too  much  confidence 
in  leaders  (Mic.  vii.  5 ;  Jer.  iv.  22  [LXX]),  and  declares 
such  antagonists  as  his  to  be  fit  subjects,  not  for  hatred 
and  cursing,  but  for  pity  and  prayer.  According  to 
Jerome  (in  Rujin.  ii.  18),  indeed,  Origeu  brought 
railing  accusations  against  Demetrius  and  bishops  in 
general ;  but  it  is  to  be  feared  that,  in  his  anxiety  to 
represent  Origen  as  having  shown  animosity  to 
Demeti'ius,  he  has  only  succeeded  in  giving  vent  to 
his  own. 

In  spite  of  all  eflbrts  to  damage  him,  Origen's  career 
continued  to  be  brilliant  and  prosperous.  Among 
foreign  Churches  his  counsel  was  greatly  valued  and 
in  much  request.  Leading  theologians  in  Cappadocia 
and  Arabia  corresponded  with  him.  The  Palestinian 
bishops  Alexander  and  Theoktistus  were  among  those 
who  gladly  sat  at  his  feet.  His  fame,  together  with 
the  magnetic  influence  of  his  personality,  attracted  to 
him  a  band  of  earnest-minded  youths,  who  under  his 
tuition  received  a  thorough  training  in  theology.  To 
this  class  belonged  Gregor}^,  surnamed  Thaumaturgus 
( Wonder-ivorker),  who  having  come  to  Cajsarea  along 
with  his  brother  Athenodorus  on  a  visit  to  a  relative, 
met  in  with  Origen  and  felt  constrained  to  attend  his 
lectures,  although  it  had  been  his  intention  to  proceed 
to  Berytus  in  order  to  study  Roman  law.     "  We  could 

represented  the  ■nalurc  of  tlie  devil  as  inrapalile  of  salvation,  and  Origen 
rejilied  tliat  he  fell  hy  liis  own  will,  and  can  be  saved.  Tiiis  was 
wrested  to  mean  that  the  nalurc  of  the  devil  is  to  he  saved.  Origen 
taught,  of  course,  not  that  the  evil  in  him  will  be  saved,  hut  that  he 
will  be  saved  when  he  ceases  to  be  evil. 


LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  ORIGEN      57 

not  loose  ourselves  from  his  bonds  ;  " — so  he  declares  in 
his  Panegyric  upon  Origen.  In  this  address,  delivered 
by  him,  in  accordance  with  ancient  custom,  on  his 
departure  from  Ca^sarea,  after  a  pupilage  of  live  years, 
lie  bears  emphatic  and  loving  testimony  to  Origen's 
attaimcuts  as  a  scholar,  to  his  abilities  as  a  teacher,  to 
his  lovableness  as  a  man,  and  to  his  piety  as  a  Chris- 
tian. If  written  in  a  somewhat  rhetorical  strain,  it 
nevertheless  throws  most  valuable  light  upon  the 
nature  and  method  of  Origen's  academical  labours, 
explains  the  kind  of  curriculum  through  which  his 
students  were  conducted,  and  helps  us  to  understand 
the  extraordinary  charm  of  his  personal  character.  If 
Gregory  and  his  brother  were  fascinated  by  his  dis- 
courses, -which  are  described  in  the  Panegyric  as  "  un- 
speakably winning,  hallowed,  and  passing  lovely,"  they 
were  not  less  so  by  the  man  himself,  towards  whom 
they  soon  came  to  cherish  an  ardent  affection. 

During  the  persecution  initiated  by  Maximin  tlie 
Thracian,  who  seated  himself  on  the  throne  by  murder- 
ing his  benefactor  Alexander  Severus  (235),  Origen 
took  refuge  in  the  Cappadocian  Cassarea  under  the 
wing  of  his  friend  and  correspondent  Firmilian,  bishop 
of  that  city.  But  as  the  persecution  broke  out  there 
also,  he  was  forced  to  -withdraw  to  the  house  of  a 
Christian  lady  named  Juliana,  where  for  two  years 
he  lived  in  strict  concealment.  It  so  happened  that 
this  lady  had  inherited  the  library  and  waitings  of 
S^'uimachus,  the  Ebionitic  Greek  translatoi"  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  the  use  of  these  I\ISS.  proved  a  welcome 
windfall  to  Origen,  who  was  (juietly  working  at  his 
critical  recension  of  the  Bible.  But  although  he  him- 
self passed  unscathed  through  this  time  of  persecution, 


5  8      ORIGEN   AND   GREEK  THEOLOGY 

some  of  his  associates  were  not  so  fortunate.  His  old 
friend  Ambrosius,  and  Protoktetus,  a  presbyter  of 
Ca3sarca,  were  seized  and  tin-own  into  prison.  While 
their  fate  still  huno;  in  the  balance,  he  wrote  and 
dedicated  to  them  his  treatise  On  Martyrdom,  in 
which  he  exhorts  them  to  emulate  the  heroism  dis- 
played by  the  Jewish  martyrs  of  the  Maccabrean  age, 
to  show  their  love  to  God  by  rising  above  the  love 
of  the  visible,  and  to  sacrifice  their  lives  if  need  be 
for  the  truth.  It  fell  out,  however,  that  the  murder 
of  Maximin  in  his  tent  at  Aquileia  in  the  year  238 
relieved  the  Church  from  persecution.  Ambrosius  and 
Protoktetus  were  set  at  libery,  and  Origen  returned  to 
Csesarea  in  Palestine,  where  he  resumed  his  former 
activities.  Besides  lecturing  daily,  he  zealousl}^  prose- 
cuted his  exegetical  and  critical  labours.  The  com- 
mentaries upon  which  he  was  at  this  time  chiefly 
engaged  were  those  upon  Isaiah  and  E/.ekiel,  of 
which  only  fragments  have  been  preserved.  A  portion 
of  his  time  was  also  devoted  to  the  monumental 
Hcxai>la. 

Years  before,  Origen  had  interniittcd  his  labours  at 
Alexandria  in  order  to  visit  the  Church  in  Greece,  and 
now  we  find  him  again  in  that  country,  where  he 
seems  to  have  sojourned  for  a  while.  The  precise 
date  and  the  occasion  of  this  visit  are,  however,  un- 
certain ;  we  do  not  even  know  whether  it  was 
ecclesiastical  or  private  business  that  took  him  once 
more  to  Athens.  Travelling  through  Bithynia,  he 
spent  several  days  at  Niconiedia  wath  Ambrosius,  who 
had  meanwhile  become  deacon.  While  there  he  re- 
ceived a  letter  from  Julius  Africanus,  a  scholarly 
Christian  resident  at  Ennnaus  (Nicopolis)  in  Palestine, 


LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  ORIGEN      59 

who  had  been  present  at  a  discussion  in  wliich  Origen 
quoted  the  .story  of  Susanna  as  an  autlientic  portion 
of  tlie  Book  of  Daniel,  and  who  now  wrote  disputing 
this  position,  and  requesting  a  further  statement  of 
liis  views.  Origen  replied  in  a  lengthy  letter  from 
Niconiedia ;  but  no  ingenuity  could  undermine  the 
arguments  adduced  by  Africanus,  to  whom  the  laurels 
must  be  adjudged.  It  was  the  victory  of  the  un- 
biassed critic  over  the  champion  of  Church  tradition. 
It  seems  odd  that  Origen  should  in  this  instance  have 
allowed  his  judgment  to  be  so  warped  by  pi-ejudice; 
possibly  he  had  taken  alarm  at  the  conmiotions  which, 
with  no  desire  on  his  part,  he  had  been  instrumental 
in  raising  within  the  Church.  To  this  period  also 
should  probably  be  ascribed  Origen's  letter  to  Gregory, 
in  which  he  declares  that  Greek  philosophy  has  its 
true  function  as  a  preparation  for  Christianity,  and 
that  all  scientific  learning  is  rightly  viewed  as  the 
handmaid  of  Scripture.  During  his  stay  at  Athens 
Origen  finished  his  commentarj^  on  Ezckiel,  and  began 
that  on  the  Song  of  Songs.  His  important  work  on 
St.  John's  Gospel  seems  to  have  been  completed  before 
his  sixtieth  year,  when  he  wrote  his  exposition  of  St. 
Matthew,  since  in  the  latter  work  are  tiuotcd  passages 
from  the  former  which  nuist  have  been  written  to- 
wards the  close  of  it.  The  bulk  of  his  exegetical  work 
seems  to  have  been  done  during  the  Ca3sarean  period 
of  his  life  (231-249). 

In  the  year  244  an  Arabian  sjniod  was  convened  to 
discuss  the  Christological  views  of  In'ryllus,  bishop  of 
Bostra.  Pi-esumably  in  opposition  to  the  peculiar 
tenets  of  the  Elkesaites,  who  inhabited  the  region  to 
the  east  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  whose  leanings  appear 


6o      ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

to  have  been  in  the  direction  of  a  rude  Tritheism, 
Beryllus  liad  given  expression  to  Patripassian  views 
about  the  divinity  of  Christ.  His  object  was  to  con- 
serve the  unity  of  God  without  impairing  the  divine 
worth  of  the  Redeemer,  and  apparently  he  saw  no 
other  way  of  doing  tliis  than  that  of  adopting  the 
Unitarian  position  that  there  is  only  one  Person  in 
the  Godhead.  The  divinity  of  Christ  he  held  to  be 
merely  a  new  form  of  manifestation  on  the  part  of 
God, — not  a  diorri;  ibia,  but  only  a  (}i(irr,g  'XarpiY.ri.  The 
synod,  which  was  largely  attended,  condemned  Beryllus, 
and  vainly  tried  to  bring  him  round  to  the  orthodox 
position.  The  mediation  of  Origen  and  others  was 
then  called  in.  The  "homeless  presbyter,"  who  was 
an  adept  in  the  art  of  becoming  all  things  to  all  men, 
went  to  Bostra,  interviewed  the  recalcitrant  bishop  in 
private,  and  subsequently  at  a  sj'^nodical  disputation 
succeeded  in  convincing  him  of  his  error.  Beryllus 
not  only  frankly  recanted,^  but  seems  even  to  have 
written  a  letter  of  thanks  to  Origen.  ^  The  wonder 
is  that  even  Demetrius  did  not  capitulate  before  the 
strange  power  wielded  by  this  remarkable  man. 

Another  question  which  agitated  tlie  Arabian  Churcli 
about  this  time,  and  wliich  Origen  was  called  in  to 
clear  up,  was  that  of  the  natural  immortality  of  the 
soul.  According  to  Eusebius,  one  party  maintained 
that  the  soul  dies  with  the  body,  and  is  to  be  revived 
with  it  at  the  resurrection  —  a  doctrine  probably 
derived  from  Jewish  sources,  and  which  has  been 
mooted  oftener  than  once  in  the  subsequent  history 
of  the  Church.  TJirough  Origen's  influence  thijse  who 
1h'|(1  this  ci-roneous  view  were  led  to  renounce  it.  On 
Ku.scli.  //.  /<'.  vi.  o3.  -.iLToiue,  Calal.  c.  CO. 


LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  ORIGEN     6i 

this  third  visit  to  Ambia  lie  seems  also  to  have  suc- 
ceeded in  repressing  the  Elkesaitic  heresy,  based  upon 
a  pretended  revelation  from  heaven,  that  no  moral 
([uality  attached  to  the  act  of  denying  the  faith  in  time 
of  persecution. 

As  he  had  formerly  entered  into  intimate  relations 
with  the  household  of  Alexander  Severus,  so  now 
Origen,  presumably  by  request,  corresponded  with  the 
emperor  Philip  the  Arabian  and  his  wife  Severa, 
who  were  favourable  to  Christianity.  During  Philip's 
reign  (244-24.9)  he  wrote  his  famous  work  against 
Celsus,  and  his  commentaries  on  IMatthew's  Gospel 
and  the  Twelve  Prophets.  It  was  at  this  period  also, 
when  he  had  completed  his  sixtieth  yeiiv,  that  he  first 
sanctioned  the  taking  down  of  his  discourses  by  short- 
hand reporters. 

Origen's  life  was  not  to  have  a  peaceful  sunset.  The 
storm-clouds  of  persecution  rose  darkly  under  the  reign 
of  Decius  (249-251),  a  lover  of  paganism,  who  sought 
to  extirpate  Christianity  as  dangerous  to  the  State. 
Alike  in  extent  and  in  severity,  this  was  the  most 
serious  persecution  yet  experienced  by  the  Church. 
The  civil  authorities  were  everywhere  required  to 
leave  no  stone  unturned  in  order  to  reclaim  Christians 
for  the  service  of  the  gods.  Gentler  measures  were 
resorted  to  at  first,  and  where  these  proved  insufficient, 
a  gradual  scale  of  increasing  tortures  was  brought  to 
bear  upon  recusants.  It  was  also  part  of  the  modus 
operandi  to  strike  at  the  men  of  mark  among  the 
Christians.  Those  distinguished  for  their  zeal,  rank, 
scholarship,  or  wealth  were  singled  out  as  special 
victims  of  this  calculated  cruelty.  In  these  circum- 
stances it  was  impossible  for  Origen  to  escape.     After 


62      ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

an  unlliuchin^-  confession,  he  was  imprisoned  and  mal- 
treated in  the  fiendish  fashion  prescribed.  Eusebius 
tells  us  that  he  was  thrust  into  the  innermost  den  of 
the  prison,  wearing  a  heavy  iron  collar ;  that  his  feet 
were  for  days  together  strained  on  the  rack  ;  and  that 
he  was  threatened  with  being  burned  at  the  stake. 
But  no  pains  or  threats  could  move  him  to  recant,  and 
although  the  cruelties  to  which  he  had  been  subjected 
had  shattered  a  frame  alread}'  weakened  by  a  toilsome 
and  ascetic  life,  he  survived  the  persecution,  which 
ceased  with  the  death  of  Decius  in  251.  Not,  however, 
for  long  did  he  survive  it.  The  three  years  that  re- 
mained to  him  he  spent  mostly  in  writing  consolatory 
letters  to  sufferers,  and  in  brotherly  fellowship  with 
his  friends.  About  this  time  Dionysius  of  Alexandria, 
who  had  succeeded  Heraclas  as  bishop,  sent  him  a 
letter  on  martyrdon\.  The  communication  came  too 
late,  however,  to  lead  to  any  renewal  of  Origen's  old 
relations  with  the  Alexandrian  Church.  Now  a  worn 
out  old  man,  and  reduced  to  po\'erty  by  the  death  of 
his  benefactor  Ambrosius,  he  died,  probably  in  A.u.  254, 
in  the  seventieth  j^car  of  his  age,  at  Tyre,  where  a 
marble  monument  contiiuied  to  mark  his  gi-ave  until 
the  end  of  the  thirteenth  centur}^ 

The  personality  and  character  of  Origen  are  invested 
with  a  rare  charm.  He  was  at  once  a  great  man  and 
a  good.  His  was  a  rich  and  well-balanced  nature,  in 
which  the  intellectual  di<l  not  dwarf  the  moral,  nor  the 
speculative  the  emotional.  In  the  highest  sense  he 
was  "every  inch  a  man."  The  resolute  hrnniess  which 
already  showed  itself  in  his  youthful  repudiation  of  I'aul 
the  Gnostic  teacher  from  Antioch  distinguished  liim 
throughout,  an<l  carried  him  triumphant)}'  through  the 


LIFE  AND  CHARACTER  OF  ORIGEN     63 

persecution  that  clouded  his  latter  years.  That  he  was 
brave  to  the  point  of  absolute  fearlessness  is  demon- 
sti'ated  by  his  efiusive  sympathy  with  the  martyrs, 
openly  extended  up  to  the  hour  of  their  death.  His 
diligence  as  a  student,  catechist,  and  scientific  theo- 
logian Avas  phenomenal,  and  has  certainly  never  been 
surpassed.  In  his  behaviour  under  the  hard  treatment 
meted  out  to  him  by  the  Egyptian  Church  at  the 
instigation  of  Bishop  Demetrius,  he  lias  given  an 
object  lesson  in  Christian  meekness  and  forbearance 
which  is  difficult  to  match  in  ecclesiastical  history. 
His  lifelong  self-denial  brightly  contrasts  with  the 
sin-stained  youth  of  Augustine,  the  only  one  among 
the  Fathers  whose  distinction  and  influence  are  com- 
jxirable  to  his  own.  Other  noteworthy  elements  in  his 
character  were  his  holy  earnestness,  his  love  of  truth, 
his  deep  devotional  feeling,  and  his  unfaltering  faith. 
Nothing  could  exceed  his  scrupulous  conscientiousness. 
On  one  occasion,  being  at  a  loss  to  know  the  Hebrew 
name  of  a  tree  mentioned  in  Scripture,  he  handed 
several  twigs  to  a  company  of  Jews  so  as  to  ascertain 
definitely  the  facts  of  the  case.  The  same  punctilious 
care  for  accuracy  in  all  his  investigations  appears  also 
in  the  deference  with  which  he  consulted  Jewish 
acquaintances  upon  other  difficulties  connected  with 
their  language.  What  he  was  as  a  friend  may  be 
gathered  from  the  princely  liberality  of  Ambrosius, 
kept  up  while  he  lived,  in  giving  him  every  facility 
for  research  that  money  could  provide,  as  well  as  from 
the  happy  relations  maintained  from  youth  to  old  age 
with  Alexander,  bishop  of  Jerusalem.  To  say  that  his 
qualities  as  a  teacher  were  of  the  highest  order  of 
excellence  would  be  to  underrate  them.     In  this  de- 


64     ORIGEN   AND   GREEK  THEOLOGY 

partment  he  was  a  master  genius,  a  professor  whom 
his  students  almost  worshipped.  From  the  Panegyric 
of  his  pupil  Gregory  we  learn  how  he  inspired  them 
with  his  own  spirit,  and  drew  out  their  att'ection  till 
they  were  joined  to  him  "as  the  soul  of  Jonathan  was 
knit  to  the  soul  of  David."  We  could  have  no  better 
proof  that,  great  as  he  was  in  intellect,  he  was  equally 
so  in  heart.  In  point  of  gentleness  and  winsomeness 
of  disposition  Origcn  may  be  fitly  compared  with 
Melanchthon.  He  exercised  an  irresistible  personal 
magnetism  over  those  with  whom  he  came  into  close 
contact.  This  accounts  for  his  having  been  so  fre- 
quently employed  as  arbiter  in  matters  of  dispute,  and 
for  his  success  in  gaining  over  "  heretics  "  to  the  side 
of  the  Church.  But  he  resembled  the  Reformation 
theologian  in  saintliness  also.  In  the  purity  and  lofti- 
ness of  his  Christian  character,  in  the  sincerity,  depth, 
and  earnestness  of  his  piety,  we  have  the  perfect 
counterpoise  to  his  extraordinary  attainments  as  a 
scholar,  his  singular  acuteness  as  a  thinker,  and  his 
constructive  powers  as  a  theologian.  His  eye  was 
single,  and  therefore  his  whole  body  was  full  of  light. 
A  character  like  this,  so  rich  and  so  noble,  so  rounded 
and  complete,  is  a  possession  to  the  Christian  Chui-ch 
for  all  time,  and  one  in  view  of  which  Origen  is  rightly 
ranked  as  at  once  "  the  greatest  of  the  Fathers,"  and 
"  the  finest  genius  of  Christian  theology." 


CHAPTER    III 

Origen's  View  of  Holy  Scripture 

Although  in  liis  (^veai  work  on  the  fundamental  piin- 
ciplos  ol*  Christianity  Ori<;-en  reserves  his  discussion 
of  Holy  Scripture  for  the  closing  chapter,  his  whole 
sj'stem  of  doctrine  is  necessarily  based  upon  his  views 
regarding  this  subject,  and  in  any  review  of  his  theology 
it  seems  proper  to  give  it  precedence. 

The  pronouncement  of  Melito,  ])ishop  of  Sardis, 
limiting  the  Old  Testament  Canon,  apparently  remained 
without  influence  in  the  Church.  Christians  regarded 
with  veneration  the  whole  body  of  Jewish-Greek 
literature,  without  drawing  any  hard  and  fast  line  in 
respect  of  authority.  That  many  books,  such  as  those 
of  Solomon,  had  been  lost,  was  held  to  be  entirely 
consonant  with  the  divine  purpose,  and  the  importance 
of  tradition,  as  pointing  to  those  which  had  met  with 
universal  acceptance,  was  frankly  recognised.  'But  in 
the  third  century  no  definite  choice  between  the  Hebrew 
Canon  and  the  Septuagint  had  been  made ;  and  the  un- 
certainty is  not  dissipated  by  Origen.j  Indeed  "the 
most  striking  features  in  the  mass  of  facts  furnished 
by  him  are  the  uncertainty  of  the  results,  the  want  of 
precision  in  his  point  of  view,  and  the  facility  with 
which  he  passes  in  turn  from  scientific  discussion  to 
5 


66     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

popular  usages.  That  is  already  >'isil)l«'  in  what  he 
says  of  the  Old  Testament."'  Svhile  Origen  was 
evidently  acquainted  with  the  Jewish  Canon,  and  gave 
a  mystical  signification  to  the  number  of  its  books, 
there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  accepted  it  as 
his  own.^  His  list  of  Old  Testament  books  given  by 
Eusebius  {H.  E.  vi.  25)  agrees,  indeed,  in  respect  of 
number,  though  not  of  order,  with  the  Hebrew  Canon, 
yet  in  common  with  the  Greek  Fathers  generally  he 
frequently  quotes  the  Apocrypha  as  inspired  Scripture. 
Although  used  by  his  translator,  the  word  canonical  is 
unknown  to  himself.  With  Origen  apocryphal  means 
secret  or  hidden,  and  the  pseudepigrapha  as  represented 
by  the  Book  of  Enoch,  etc^are  not  included  by  him 
among  the  sacred  writings.  ^  Books  which  might  claim 
to  serve  as  a  rule  for  the  Church  he  classifies  as 
authentic,  spurious,  and  mixed.  To  the  first  category 
belong  all  those  which  rank  as  sources  of  dogma ;  to 
the  second,  those  which  contain  heretical  additions ; 
and  to  the  third,  those  which,  along  with  much  that  is 
excellent,  embody  also  elements  either  uncertain  or 
false.  The  genuineness  of  the  separate  books  of  Scrip- 
ture was  accepted  by  him  without  critical  inquiry. 
Thus  he  never  seems  to  have  doubted  that  Moses  wrote 
the  Pentateuch,  or  David  the  Psalms,  or  that  the  Book 
of  Job  was  actual  history^ 

With  Origen  the  New  Testament  was  still  less  of  a 
fixed  quantity  than  the  Old.  In  admitting  books  to 
canonical  rank  he  was  careful,  however,  to  exclude 
such  as  could  not  lay  claim  to  general  ecclesiastical 
recognition,  even  although  he  himself  believed  them 
to  be  genuine  apostolic  records.  The  Gospel  of  the 
1  Reuss,  Uislory  of  the  Canon,  etc.,  p.  129. 


ORIGEN'S  VIEW  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE    67 

Hebrews  lie  prized  lii^i;"lily  because  it  teaches  that  tlie 
Holy  Gliost  is  the  mother  of  the  Lord,  but  he  attached 
canonical  value  to  none  but  our  Four  Gospels.  St. 
Paul's  Epistles  he  reckoned  as  fourteen  in  number, 
ascribing  as  he  did  to  that  apostle  the  thou^-hts,  al- 
i  hough  not  the  language,  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
The  Book  of  Revelation,  which  he  interpreted  allegori- 
cally,  he  attributed  to  John  the  son  of  Zebedee.  He 
doubted  the  canonicity  of  2  Peter,  and  of  2  and  3  John, 
and  w^as  less  clear  about  the  Epistle  of  James  than  he 
was  about  that  of  Jude.  Writings  bearing  the  marks 
of  non-inspiration  he  at  once  relegated  to  the  category 
of  ordinary  profane  literature.  Certain  other  records, 
either  on  account  of  their  apostolic  origin,  or  because 
of  the  valuable  character  of  their  contents,  he  desig- 
nated as  "  mixed,"  these  last  forming,  as  Redepenning 
happily  observes,  "  the  spacious  forecourts  around  the 
sanctuary  of  the  covenant  record."  This  corresponded 
to  Origen's  view  of  the  relation  of  the  books  of  Scrip- 
ture to  one  another,  according  to  which  some  possessed 
a  higher  degree  of  sanctity  than  others.  Thus  in  the 
Old  Testament  he  ranked  Ecclesiastes  before  Proverbs, 
and  Canticles  before  Ecclesiastes,  while  in  the  New  he 
gave  precedence  to  the  Four  Gospels,  and  among  these 
again  to  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  John.  In  this  we 
may  trace  the  first  beginnings  of  that  distinction  be- 
tween Scripture  and  the  word  of  God  which  has 
bulked  so  largely  in  modern  theology. 
/TDrigen  firmly  believed  in  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures.  To  him  they  are  "divine  writings,"  "the 
word  of  God,"  and  not  "the  compositions  of  men.]/^ 
They  are  throughout  pervaded  by  the  fulness  of  the 
divine  majesty,  having  been  "  composed  hy  inspiration 


68     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

of  tlie  Holy  Spirit,  agreeably  to  tlie  will  of  the  Father 
of  all  things  through  Jesus  Christ."/*fhc  inspiration 
extends  to  all  biblical  books,  and  to  every  woi-d  in 
them,  so  that  errors  are  impossible^  Apparent  dis- 
crepancies he  explains  either  by  assuming  that  two 
separate  events  are  recorded,  or  by  resorting  to  the 
allegorical  method^In  the  case  of  solecisms  and 
grammatical  defects  he  distinguishes  between  the  ex- 
ternal word  in  regard  to  which  the  writers  were  con- 
scious of  their  liability  to  err,  and  its  contents,  which 
are  uniformly  and  absolutely  devoid  of  error.  The 
medium  of  inspirati(jn  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  trans- 
mits the  self-revelation  of  God  in  the  Son  to  those 
whose  special  sanctity  has  fitted  them  to  be  the  organs 
of  its  communication  to  others.  Tliis  spiritual  elevation, 
to  which  alone  such  illumination  has  been  granted,  has 
nothing  in  common  with  the  ecstatic  frenzy  of  heathen 
soothsayers,  but  implies  perfect  mental  control  as  well 
as  freedom.  The  inspired  writers,  therefore,  were  not 
the  mere  mechanical  instruments  of  the  Spirit;  they 
arrano-ed  their  thoughts,  and  even  balanced  their 
sentences,  with  care.  To  this  extent  there  is  a  human 
element  in  Scripture.  While  the  impulse  to  speak 
came  directly  from  God,  the  writer  conveyed  the 
message  in  his  own  words.  Great  stress  is  laid  by 
Orio-en  upon  the  moral  condition  of  the  organs  of 
revelation.  So  far  does  he  make  this  a  determinating 
factor  in  the  case,  that  he  bases  upon  it  the  claim  that 
there  are  different  degrees  of  inspiration,  Christ  rank- 
ino-  ill  this  respect  higher  than  Paul,  and  Paul  than 
Luke  or  Timothy.  Each  vessel  is  filled  according  to 
its  capacity,  and  the  treasure  is  put  into  earthen 
vessels  that  the  triumph  of  the  truth  may  be  due  to 


ORIGEN'S  VIEW  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE     69 

no  arts  of  human  speech,  but  solely  to  the  power  of 
God. 

Origen  finds  evidence  of  its  inspiration  in  the  general 
recognition  accorded  to  the  teaching  of  Scripture  as 
compared  with  the  reception  given  to  any  of  the 
doctrinal  systems  elaborated  by  men.  For  the  truths 
of  revelation,  irrespective  of  nationality  and  in  face 
of  persecution,  many  have  abandoned  their  ancestral 
worship;  whereas,  notwithstiindiiig  all  their  parade  of 
logic,  none  of  tlie  philosophers  have  succeeded  in 
making  disciples  of  any  considerable  fraction  of  even 
a  single  nation.  The  same  conclusion  is  borne  out  by 
tlie  fulfilment  of  prophecy.  The  Saviour's  Ijirth  and 
dominion,  the  sins  of  the  Jews  and  the  election  of  the 
Gentiles,  were  all  foretold.  It  had  been  clearly  pre- 
dicted that  from  the  time  of  Christ  onwards  there 
would  be  no  king  in  Judah,  and  that  witli  His  appear- 
ance the  whole  sacrificial  service  would  be  abolished. 
But  the  argument  from  prophecy,  which  proves  the 
deity  of  Christ,  proves  also  the  divine  inspiration  of 
the  writings  whicli  prophesied  of  Him.  The  divine 
origin  of  scriptural  doctrine  is  further  attested  by  the 
superhuman  power  that  watched  over,  and  was  reflected 
in,  the  doings  of  the  apostles.  Finally,  the  very  perusal 
of  the  sacred  writings  begets  in  the  reader's  own  inner 
consciousness  the  feeling  that  the}'  are  inspired. 

In  every  part  of  Scripture  Origen  traces  the  breath 
of  the  same  Spirit,  and  views  both  Testaments  as  con- 
taining between  them  one  complete  covenant  record. 
He  strongly  asserted,  in  opposition  to  the  Gnostics,  the 
unity  of  the  sacred  writings.  His  unswerving  attitude 
on  tliis  point  did  more  than  any  other  influence  to 
confirm  the  Church  in  the  belief  of  the  indissoluble 


70     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

connection  between  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  lie 
loses  no  op})portunity  of  pointing  out  that  in  "  the 
volume  of  the  book  "  the  doctrine  of  Christ  has  been 
gathered  into  one,  and  maintains  that,  like  that  of  the 
Paschal  Lamb,  the  body  of  Scripture  is  indivisible. 
He  claims  that  the  perfect  harmony  of  law,  prophecy, 
and  gospel  is  shown  by,  among  other  evidences,  the 
appearance  of  Moses  and  Elijah  at  the  Transfiguration. 
While,  however,  essentially  the  same  as  regards  their 
contents,  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  stand  related 
to  each  other  as  shadow  and  substance.^  Both  contain 
the  truth ;  but  in  the  one  it  is  hidden,  whereas  in  the 
other  it  comes  clearly  to  light.  This  is  the  result  of 
the  advent  of  Christ,  which  fulfils  and  explains  every 
part  of  Holy  Writ.  The  divinity  of  the  prophetic 
declarations,  as  well  as  the  spiritual  nature  of  the 
truth  embodied  in  the  Mosaic  law,  is  thus  clearly 
disclosed,  and  the  veil  removed  by  which  the  light 
had  been  previously  concealed.  Origen's  too  exclusive 
treatment  of  the  law  as  the  shadow  of  gospel  condi- 
tions prevented  him,  however,  from  doing  justice  to 
its  ethical  side. 

According  to  Origen,  tlie  Spirit's  chief  object  in 
Scripture  is  to  communicate  inefiable  mysteries  re- 
garding the  affairs  of  men,  i.e.  souls  inhabiting  bodies.- 
But,  passing  forthwith  into  the  region  of  the  tran- 
scendent, he  remarks  that  among  those  matters  wliicli 
relate  to  souls  we  must  rank  as  primary  the  doctrines 

^  His  position  with  reference  to  tills  point  is  not  quite  consistent. 
For  exiiniple,  writing  against  the  Gnostics,  he  even  goes  so  far  as  to 
declare  a  preference  for  the  Old  Testament  over  the  New  ;  on  the  otlur 
hand,'  he  asserts  tltat  for  such  as  have  true  insight  into  the  gospel  the 
Old  Testament  has  no  further  value. — In  Mali.  x.  412. 

^  De  Princ.  iv.  11. 


ORIGEN'S  VIEW  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE     71 

bearing  upon  God  and  His  only-begotten  Son,  namely, 
"  of  what  nature  He  is,  and  in  what  manner  He  is  the 
Son  of  God,  and  what  are  the  causes  of  His  descending 
even  to  the  assumption  of  human  flesh,  and  of  complete 
humanit}^ ;  and  what  also  is  the  operation  of  this  Son, 
and  upon  whom  and  wlien  exercised."  In  the  divine 
teaching  a  place  had  also  necessarily  to  be  given,  he 
says,  to  the  subjects  of  rational  creatures,  diversities  of 
souls,  the  nature  of  the  world,  and  the  origin  and 
habitat  of  sin., 'In  short,  the  Scriptures  are  treated 
by  Origcn  as  a  mine  of  speculative  truths.  Facts  are 
of  importance  mainly  as  the  vehicles  of  ideas ;  and 
the  ethical  is  subordinated  to  the  metaphysical,  in 
keeping  with  the  spirit  of  the  age.  But  he  never 
departs  from  the  position  that  the  Bible  is  tlie  sole 
guide  to  those  higher  truths  which,  however  they  may 
var}'  as  regards  the  form  of  their  presentation,  remain 
always  the  same  in  substance,  and  which,  while  to 
some  extent  we  apprehend  them  here,  can  be  fully 
grasped  only  hereafter.  Hence  he  is  careful  to  in- 
culcate the  practical  duty  of  reading  the  Scriptures. 
They  are  the  true  nutriment  of  the  spiritual  nature, 
and  it  is  by  partaking  daily  of  this  food  that  we  arrive 
at  true  fulness  and  richness  of  life,  and  are  enabled 
ever  more  completely  to  consecrate  it  to  God. 

But  according  to  Origen  the  Spirit  had  a  second 
object  in  Scripture,  namely,  the  concealment  of 
spiritual  truths  under  cover  of  some  narrative  of 
visible  things  or  human  deeds,  or  of  the  written 
legislation.  Although  tluis  in  one  sense  mere  wrap- 
page, the  letter  of  Scripture  is  capable  of  edifying 
"  the  multitude,"  wlio  cannot  investigate  the  mysteries. 
Seeing,  however,  there  is  much  in  Scripture  besides 


72     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

the  obvious,  "the  word  uL'  God  has  arranged  that 
certain  stumbling-blocks,  as  it  were,  and  offences,  and 
impossibilities,  should  be  introduced  into  the  law  and 
the  histor}^"  lest  we  should  be  beguiled  from  the  true 
doctrines  by  the  mere  charm  of  the  language,  or  rest 
satisfied  with  the  letter.  The  ordinary  narrative  could 
sometimes  convey  the  mystical  sense,  but  where  it  was 
not  suited  for  this,  "the  Scripture  interwove  in  the 
history  the  account  of  some  event  that  did  not  take 
place,  sometimes  what  could  not  have  happened  ;  some- 
times what  could,  but  did  not."  Instances  are  given 
where  the  physical  or  moral  impossibility  of  the  case 
should  stimulate  inquiry  after  the  inner  meaning. 
Who,  it  is  asked,  can  believe  there  was  morning 
and  evening  before  the  sun  was  created,  or  an  actual 
earthly  paradise  with  a  visible  tree  of  life,  or  a  moun- 
tain lofty  enough  for  Jesus  to  view  from  its  to]5  all  the 
kingdoms  of  the  world  ?  Some  of  the  Mosaic  precepts 
Origen  declares  to  be  on  a  literal  interpretation 
irrational,  as,  e.g.,  that  against  eating  vultures,  which 
famine  itself  would  induce  none  to  eat;  and  others 
impossible,  such  as  that  which  requires  sitting  at  home 
throughout  the  Sabbath.  He  speaks  in  a  similar  way 
of  some  of  the  Saviour's  injunctions  to  the  apostles, 
maintaining,  for  instance,  that  only  "simple  persons" 
would  believe  that  he  ordered  them  to  "  salute  no  man 
by  the  way."  According  to  this  view  the  literal  sense 
of  such  passages  as  those  recording  the  episode  of 
Lot's  daughters,  the  barbarities  of  the  wars  against 
the  Canaanites,  and  imprecations  upon  enemies,  is  also 
discarded  by  the  enlightened  conscience.  It  seems 
strange  that  Origen,  who  was  so  careful  to  make  out 
to  the  last  detail  the  infallibility  of   Holy  Scripture, 


ORIGEN'S  VIEW  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE     73 

should  have  also  denied  the  historical  credibility  of 
such  incidents  as  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  the  cleansing 
of  the  temple,  the  feet-washing,  etc.  Perhaps  the 
explanation  is  to  be  found  partly  in  the  inordinate 
idealism  of  his  age,  which  led  him  to  doubt  the 
authenticity  of  whatever  appeared  to  be  contrary  to 
reason  or  unworthy  of  God,  no  matter  what  ecclesias- 
tical standards  might  teach.  Ilis  doubts  were  certainly 
not  due  to  a  sceptical  tendency,  for  he  cordially  accepts 
all  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  faith ;  rather  may  we 
with  Redepenning  regard  them  as  the  consequences  of 
an  excessive  inclination  to  believe. 

The  great  instrument  for  discovering  and  interpret- 
ing the  deeper  mysteries  underlying  the  letter  of 
Scripture  is  the  allegorical  method.  Origen  uses  this 
in  a  twofold  manner, — positively,  so  as  by  means  of 
it  to  teach  and  elucidate  the  doctrines  of  the  faith ; 
and  negatively,  in  order  to  defend  it  against  the 
assaults  of  its  adversaries.  Allegorism  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture  was  in  vogue  before  Origen's 
time,  but  he  was  the  first  who  attempted  to  give  it 
a  scientific  basis.  Not  satisfied,  like  Clement,  to  accept 
it  as  a  traditional  fact  that  the  sacred  books  have  an 
allegorical  meaning,  he  sought  an  abstract  ground  of 
justification  for  this  theory,  as  well  as  a  more  definite 
method  of  applying  it,  so  as  to  ascertain,  if  possible  by 
rule,  the  sense  of  particular  passages.  He  starts  from 
the  position  that  earthly  things  in  general,  and  sacred 
history  and  law  in  particular,  are  the  shadows  of 
things  heavenly  and  invisible.  If  God  made  man  in 
His  own  image,  He  may  have  made  other  creatures 
after  the  image  of  other  heavenly  things.  Thus  by 
means  of  the  world  that  is  seen  the  soul  is  led  upwards 


74     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

to  the  unseen  and  eternal.  Upon  the  terrestrial  the 
seeing  eye  can  discern  the  stamp  of  the  celestial.  In 
connection  with  this  "  law  of  correspondence  "  Origen 
makes  the  pregnant  remark  :  "  He  who  believes  the 
Scriptures  to  have  proceeded  from  Him  who  is  the 
author  of  nature  may  well  expect  to  find  the  same 
sort  of  difficulties  in  it  as  arc  found  in  the  constitution 
of  nature."  ^  This  was  the  seed-corn  from  winch  sprang, 
fifteen  centuries  later,  Butler's  famous  Andhxj)/,  and  the 
words  are  fittingly  appended  by  Southey  to  his  inscrip- 
tion upon  the  bishop's  monument  in  Bristol  Cathedral. 
Origen  finds  his  ruling  principle  of  interpretation 
in  Prov.  xxii.  20  (LXX),-  and  in  an  analogy  between 
the  Platonic  doctrine  of  the  constitution  of  man  and 
Scripture,  which  has  been  given  for  man's  salvation. 
As  man  is  of  a  tripartite  nature,  consisting  of  body, 
soul,  and  spirit,  so  also  does  Scripture  possess  a  three- 
fold sense — the  literal,  the  moral,  and  the  spiritual. 
This  triple  sense  he  supports  by  an  ingenious  use  of  a 
passage  from  2' he  Shepherd  of  Herrtias,  where  Grapte, 
Clement,  and  Hennas  arc  made  to  typify  the  three 
classes  of  readers  to  whom  Scripture  appeals.-^     Grapte 

1  Philocal.  p.  23. 

2  The  word  translated  (in  A. V.  and  K.  \'.)  "excellent  things"  literally 
means  "thrice"  or  "in  triple  form,"  and  is  so  rendered  by  the  LXX 
(T/)i(r(rws)  and  A'ulg.  {triplicitcr),  perhaps  with  the  idea  of  repetition  to 
emphasise  the  truth.  Origen  uses  the  passage,  so  understood,  as  an 
argument  for  his  view  of  a  threefold  sense  of  Holy  Scripture.  I'crowne 
[Camhridije  Bible,  etc.,  ad  loc.)  .says:  "The  word  has  been  thought  to 
denote  the  chief  of  the  three  persons  who  formed  the  complement  of  an 
ancient  war-chariot,  and  so  to  mean  principal  or  excellent."  According 
to  R.  V.  marg.  "  the  word  is  doubtful.     Another  reading  is  heretofore." 

'"  He  also  finds  an  allusion  to  the  threefold  sense  in  tlie  waterpots 
"containing  two  or  three  lirkins  apiece"  (John  ii.  6).  Hog  Do  Pr inc. 
iv.  11,  12. 


ORIGEN'S  VIEW  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE     75 

represents  the  orphans  wlio  are  unable  to  call  God 
tlieir  Father,  and  who  are  fit  to  apprehend  only  the 
"  body "  or  letter  of  Scripture ;  Clement,  the  more 
advanced,  who  are  edified  by  its  "  soul " ;  and  Hermas, 
tlie  wise  and  grey-headed  presbyters  of  the  Church,  the 
perfect  (1  Cor.  ii.  6,  7),  who  are  capable  of  apprehendiuo- 
the  spiritual  law  itself.  This  does  not  imply  that  from 
every  passage  a  threefold  meaning  is  to  be  extracted. 
Sometimes,  where  the  literal  sense  is  cither  sufficiently 
worthy  of  God  or  sufficiently  surprising,  Origen  is  con- 
tent not  to  allegorise  ;  it  is  only  the  commonplace  that 
he  considers  it  essential  to  explain.  Some  texts  contain 
only  the  "  soul  "  and  "  spirit "  of  Scripture,  i.e.  have  no 
"  bodily "  or  literal  sense  at  all ;  others,  as  the  Ten 
Commandments  and  all  precepts  of  universal  obliga- 
tion, have  an  ethical  import  which  is  of  itself  sufficient. 
It  has  frequently  been  held  that  Origen  further 
divided  the  spiritual  sense  into  an  allegorical  and  an 
anagogical,^  but  this  claim  can  scarcely  be  made  good. 
Indeed  it  is  not  always  easy  or  possible  to  differentiate 
between  the  moral  and  spiritual  senses,  which  shade 
ofl'  into  each  other  like  dissolving  views.  In  numerous 
instances,  however,  the  threefold  meaning  is  stated 
clearly  enough.  The  grain  of  mustard  seed,  for 
example,  is  to  be  understood  literally  of  the  actual 
seed ;  morally,  it  denotes  faith ;  spiritually,  it  repre- 
sents the  kingdom  of  heaven.  The  moral  signification 
of  the  text  seems  to  cover  those  uses  of  it  which  bear 
upon  the  practical  life  of  the  soul  in  its  relation  to  God 
and  duty  ;    the   spiritual  extends  to  all  "  mysteries " 

^  lu  the  Latiu  Church  tliis  found  current  expression  in  the  couplet — 
"  Litcra  gesta  docet,  quid  credis  allegoria, 
Moralis  quid  agas,  quo  teudis  anayogia." 


tg    origen  and  greek  theology 

connected  with  the  Church  and  its  history,  both  tem- 
poral and  eternal.  But  in  many  passages  Origen 
satisfies  himself  with  the  broad  twofold  distinction 
between  letter  and  spirit.  Viewed  purely  as  the 
rudimentary  stage  of  Christian  culture,  the  merely 
literal  interpretation  is  at  once  useful  and  hannless, 
but  unless  men  outgrow  this  it  becomes  injurious. 
Christ's  woe  pronounced  upon  tlic  scribes  and 
Pharisees  he  applies  to  sucli  as  concern  themselves 
only  with  the  literal  meaning.  To  cling  to  the  letter 
after  the  veil  has  been  taken  from  the  law  is  the 
root  of  much  evil.  For  the  Jew  it  means  unbelief ; 
for  tlie  Christian,  a  yoke  of  bondage ;  for  the  Church, 
a  fruitful  source  of  heresy;  and  for  all,  a  misunder- 
standing of  God. 

It  is,  then,  according  to  Origen,  the  function  of 
allegorism  to  discover,  exhibit,  and  expound  the 
deeper  sense  of  Scripture.  Only  through  the  Holy 
Ghost,  however,  can  one  acquire  this  noblest  of  all 
arts.  The  spiritual  penetration  necessary  in  order  to 
the  discovery  of  "mysteries"  is  essentially  bound  up 
with  the  possession  of  faith  and  love  to  Jesus  Christ. 
Whilo  no  one  has  absolutely  lost  the  faculty  of  appre- 
hending the  divine,  men  differ  vastly  in  respect  of 
knowledge  and  receptivit}'.  Some  have  not  graspetl 
the  most  elementary  principles  of  morality  and 
religion  ;  others  confountl  their  S3'stems  of  pliilosophy 
with  the  highest  truth.  Among  Christians  who  roally 
possess  this,  some  cling  to  the  letter  alone;  whilo 
others  again,  who  have  a  deeper  apprehension  of 
truth,  differ  in  proportion  to  their  zeal.  There  thus 
opens  up  before  the  truly  consecrated  soul  an  ever- 
widcuiiig  and  illimitable  prospect  of  larger  knowledge. 


ORIGEN'S  VIEW  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE    77 

What  led  Origen  thus  to  repudiate  tlie  literal  sense 
of  so  many  passages  of  Scripture  ?  In  general,  it  may 
be  said  that  his  Platonic  spiritualism,  his  attachment 
to  the  Alexandrian  idea  of  gnosis,  and  Ids  extravagant 
conception  of  inspiration  already  predisposed  him  in 
favour  of  a  mystical  exegesis.  More  particularly  it 
would  appear  that  he  was  impelled  in  tins  direction 
])y  the  immediate  necessities  of  the  polemic  against 
Jews  and  heretics,  and  also  perhaps  by  the  homiletic 
requirements  of  the  age.  To  a  certain  extent 
Origen  is  justified  in  claiming  tlic  Apostle  Paul  (i.e. 
qua  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews)  as  a  pre- 
decessor in  the  field  of  allegorical  interpretation.  Yet 
tliere  is  a  world  of  difference  between  the  allegorising 
of  the  New  Testament  Epistle  and  that  of  Origen,  in 
which,  while  they  cannot  extinguish  his  brilliant  merit 
as  a  biblical  scholar,  the  most  fanciful  extravagances 
— etymological,  cosmological,  and  even  arithmetical — 
abound.  His  method  is  really  a  "play  of  the  imagina- 
tion, an  excellent  means  of  appearing  to  find  what  one 
already  possesses,  but  not  of  discovering  what  one 
does  not  possess."^  It  is  at  once  illusive  and  fruit- 
loss.  Although  involving  much  laborious  exercise  of 
the  mind  and  the  imagination,  it  is  labour  in  vain ; 
it  furnishes  him  with  nothing  new,  and  is  after  all 
only  the  reflection  of  his  own  thoughts.  He  finds  in 
it  a  convenient  way  of  compelling  Scripture  to  yield 
an  answer  to  the  many  speculative  questions  that 
agitate  his  own  restless  brain.  But  it  is  no  proper  or 
satisfying  answer  that  he  thus  obtains.  Scripture  is 
merely  turned  into  a  cipher,  of  which  he  has  not  the 

'  Deuis,  Dc   la  Philosophie  d'Origine,   p.  33.      Cf.   in  Exod.,  Horn, 
xiii.  2. 


7?>     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

key.  As  a  Jew,  even  Pliilo  had  to  pay  some  regard  to 
the  literal  and  historical  sense  of  the  Old  Testament ; 
but  the  reins  of  Origen's  imagination  knew  no  such 
restraining  influence.  For  him  allegorical  exegesis 
meant  licence  to  father  his  own  speculations  upon  a 
sacred  text  which  was  venerated  as  the  depository  of 
all  truth. 

In  opposition  to  the  Jews  and  Judaising  Christians, 
who  denied  that  their  legal  sacrifices  and  ritual  were 
denuded  of  their  value  and  importance  by  the  coming 
of  Christ,  Origen  maintained  that  to  observe  the  law 
outwardly  in  the  letter  now  that  its  spiritual  sense  has 
been  revealed,  is  no  longer  religion,  but  superstition, 
and  a  hindrance  rather  than  a  help  to  piety.  "  Com- 
pared with  the  gospel,  the  law  is  like  those  earthen 
vessels  which  the  artist  forms  before  casting  the  statue 
in  bronze ;  they  are  necessary  until  the  work  itself  is 
finished,  but  their  utility  ceases  with  the  completion  of 
the  statue."  ^ 

With  Origen  the  aggressiveness  of  the  Gnostics 
weighed  even  moi'e  powerfully  than  the  conservatism 
of  the  Jews.  Learned,  versatile,  speculative,  this  class 
of  opponents  devoted  their  oratorical  and  literary 
powers  to  wrecking  the  faith  of  the  simple.  Un- 
doubtedly the  strong  point  of  Christian  preaching  was 
an  unbroken  tradition  reaching  from  the  Creation  to 
the  times  of  Christ.  The  Gnostics  sought  to  under- 
mine this  position  by  violently  separating  the  New 
Testament  stem  from  the  Old  Testament  root.  They 
ridiculed  the  story  of  Noah's  ark,  and  the  God  who 
had  to  send  His  angels  to  ascertain  what  was  happen- 
ing in  Sodom.     They  criticised  mercilessly  whatever 

'  In  Lcvit.,  Honi.  x.  1. 


ORIGEN'S  VIEW  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE    79 

ill  the  Old  Testament  offended  their  moral  sense,  e.c). 
the  atrocities  of  the  Jewish  wars,  with  the  view  of 
representing  them  as  sanctioned  by  a  cruel  God  utterly 
unlike  the  good  God  of  the  gospel.  Cultured  Greeks, 
although  otherwise  drawn  to  the  sacred  writings,  were 
shocked  at  such  tokens  of  barbarity,  and  hesitated  to 
declare  themselves  Christians.  Under  these  circum- 
stances Origen  does  not,  like  Clement,  content  himself 
with  pleading  that  in  God  justice  and  goodness  are 
harmoniously  combined.  He  boldly  cuts  the  knot  by 
maintaining  that  the  narratives  and  commands  to 
which  his  opponents  took  exception  are  not  literally 
true ;  that  the  kings  slain  by  the  Israelites  are  only 
figurative  names  for  vices  that  have  dominion  over 
men ;  and  that  the  nations  which  they  are  said  to 
have  exterminated  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  composed 
of  men,  but  of  the  enemies  that  assail  men's  souls. 
What  the  Spirit  has  in  view  in  such  passages  is  not 
the  narration  of  historical  events,  but  the  communica- 
tion of  mysteries,  under  the  veil  of  facts,  for  the  soul's 
edification.  They  thus  serve  a  pasdagogic  purpose, 
and  are  vehicles  of  the  highest  truth.  The  forbidding 
aspect  of  the  upper  garment  cannot  alter  the  fact  that 
"  the  king's  daughter  is  all  glorious  within,"  and  while 
it  may  repel  the  ignorant,  it  only  acts  as  a  spur  to 
redoubled  effort  on  the  part  of  the  spiritually  enlight- 
ened. In  the  hands  of  Origen,  therefore,  allegorism  in 
its  negative  aspect  becomes  an  apologetic  weapon,  by 
means  of  which  he  defends  Christianity  against  the 
hide-bound  externalism  of  the  Jews  and  the  blas- 
phemous criticism  of  the  Gnostics ;  but  as  the  result 
of  his  fantastic  interpretations,  the  history  itself,  of 
course,  disappears.     Lest,  however,  his  view  should  be 


So     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

regarded  as  invalidating  entirely  both  the  historical 
and  legislative  portions  of  Scripture,  Origen  is  careful 
to  state  that  the  passages  having  a  purely  spiritual 
meaning  are  few  in  comparison  to  those  that  are  true 
historically,  and  that  in  regard  to  the  Decalogue  and 
such  New  Testament  precepts  as  "  Swear  not  at  all," 
etc.,  there  is  no  doubt  that  they  are  to  be  observed 
according  to  the  letter,  although  in  such  cases  a  deeper 
meaning  also  may  disclose  itself  to  the  advanced 
Christian. 

It  has  been  suggested  that,  even  irrespective  of  any 
controversy  with  Jews  or  heretics,  Origen  would  still 
have  been  driven  to  these  extremities  by  the  mere 
conditions  of  preaching  in  his  time.  The  preacher's 
custom  was  one  day  to  read  and  expound  a  page  of 
Scripture,  the  next  day  to  read  and  expound  the  page 
following.  In  the  case  of  historical  books,  which  were 
not  written  exactly  for  edification,  one  can  understand 
what  embarrassment  he  \\'Ould  often  experience.  Only 
by  effacing  their  historical  character  could  he  draw 
edifying  lessons  from  texts  but  little  edifying  in  them- 
selves.^ Origen's  Homilies  certainly  show  how  ready 
he  was  to  sacrifice  the  literal  sense,  and  at  all  hazards 
to  discover  a  meaning  suitable  to  the  moral  and 
spiritual  needs  of  his  hearers.^  -  Any  other  course 
would  in  his  opinion  have  been  wrong.  "  Those  do 
injustice  to  Moses,  who,  when  the  Book  of  Leviticus 
or  some  portion  of  Numbers  is  read  in  the  church, 
do  not  set  forth  spiritually  what  is  written  in  the 
law.  For  necessarily  those  present  on  hearing  recited 
in  the  church  either  the  rites  of  sacrifice  or  the 
observances  of  the  Sabbath  and  other  similar  things, 
'  Denis,  p,  45. 


ORIGEN'S  VIEW  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE     8r 

are  displeased,  and  say,  How  is  it  necessary  to  read 
that  here  ?  Of  what  use  to  us  are  Jewish  precepts  and 
the  observances  of  a  despised  people  ?  That  concerns 
the  Jews ;  let  them  attend  to  it  if  they  please."  ^ 

Round  up  with  the  positive  aspect  of  allegorism  as 
the  instrument  for  the  discovery  of  mysteries  was  the 
doctrine  of  reserve,  or  economy,  as  it  was  called.  This 
Avas  based  upon  such  passages  as  Pro  v.  v.  16;  Tob. 
xii.  7  ;  Matt.  vii.  6 ;  Mark  iv.  34 ;  and  while  applied 
partly  to  the  hostile  heathen,  was  used  by  Clement 
and  Origen  chiefly  as  a  justification  for  withholding 
from  Christians  of  the  less  educated  order  whatever 
might  tend  to  unsettle  their  simple  faith.  For  such 
the  only  safe  path  was  held  to  be  that  of  implicit 
obedience  to  the  divine  law ;  in  no  case  were  they  to 
ask  the  reason.  "  The  holy  apostles,"  says  Origen,  "  in 
preaching  the  faith  of  Christ,  declared  with  the 
utmost  clearness  whatever  they  thought  necessary  to 
salvation,  even  to  those  who  are  slothful  in  the  in- 
vestigation of  divine  science,  leaving  the  reason  of 
their  assertions  to  be  sought  out  by  those  who  should 
deserve  the  excellent  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  and  especially 
the  graces  of  utterance,  wisdom,  and  knowledge.  But 
as  to  other  things,  they  affirmed  indeed  that  they  are, 
but  why  or  whence  they  did  not  explain."  -  There  is 
a  sense  in  which  the  doctrine  of  reserve  may  be 
properly  used  by  every  teacher  who  would  guard 
against  confusing  his  pupils  by  a  too  early  intro- 
duction to  what  is  difficult  and  profound.  But  the 
Alexandrian  Fathers  carried  it  far  bej'ond  the  limits 
of  a  prudential  silence  of  this  sort.  They  saw  no 
harm  in  winking  at  superstitious  beliefs  which  they 
^  In  Num.,  Horn,  vii.  2.  -  Preface  to  Dc  Princ. 

6 


82     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

considered  to  be  either  luirinles.s  or  positively  helpful 
in  the  right  direction.  Such  a  standpoint  reflects  the 
influence  of  the  Greek  philosophy,  which  did  not 
reckon  Truth  among  the  four  cardinal  virtues.  It 
makes  the  doctrine  of  economy  "the  screen  of  an 
esoteric  belief,"  and  the  domain  of  intellectual  free- 
dom the  close  preserve  of  the  enlightened  Christian. 
Additional  interest  is  lent  to  this  doctrine  from  the 
fact  that,  in  conjunction  with  "  tradition,"  it  was  made 
the  basis  of  the  Tractarian  Movement  in  England  in 
the  nineteenth  century. 

Perhaps  the  most  serious  fault  in  Origen's  position 
with  reference  to  this  whole  subject  is  his  failure  to 
take  account  of  the  law  of  historical  development  in 
divine  revelation.     In  his  view  Moses  and  the  prophets 
had  as  deep  an  insight  into  the  relations  of  the  Persons 
of  the  Godhead  as  the  apostles,  and  he  could  probably 
/-  have  found  proofs  of  the  resurrection  as  easily  in  the 
Book  of  Genesis  as  in  the  Pauline  Epistles.     From  this 
standpoint  there  was,  of  course,  nothing  to  prevent  the 
gospel  records  from  being  supplemented  by  the  pro- 
phecies;   and   in    fact   Origen   treats   the    Psalms    as 
sources  for  the  life  of  Christ.     He  regards  the  whole 
-  truth  as  having  been  revealed  by  the  Spirit  under  the 
Old  Testament  economy  as  well  as  under  the  New,  the 
only  difterence   being   that  in   the  former  case   com- 
paratively few   understood   the   spiritual   significance 
of  the  law,  whereas  it  is  now  understood  by  multi- 
tudes.    It   is  true  that  in  a  certain  degree  the  Old 
Testament  prefigured  the  New ;    but  neither  was  all 
symbolic,  nor  did  what  symbols  there  were  amount  to 
actual  proofs  of  Christian  doctrine.    Even  the  shadows 
of  good  things  to  come  were  only  shadows,  but  Origen 


ORIGEN'S  VIEW  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE     83 

confounded  tlicni  with  those  <^ood  things  tliemselves. 
Nothing  has  operated  more  prejudicially  against  a  true 
understanding  of  the  Bible  than  this  absurd  method  of 
treatment.  Its  mischievous  results  have  been  reflected 
in  all  subse(iuent  doctrinal  development.  For  loiig  the 
glamour  of  Origen's  genius  led  to  widespread  acqui- 
escence in  his  wildest  extravagances.  But  with  the 
dawn  of  grammatico-historical  exegesis  and  the  found- 
ing of  the  new  science  of  biblical  theolog}^  this 
antic juated  method  of  handling  Scripture  has  for  ever 
become  impossible.  At  the  same  time  "  exact  gram- 
matical exegesis  is  by  no  means  alien  to  his  homilies 
and  commentaries,  and  many  of  his  strangest  uses  of 
Scripture  may  be  viewed  as  practical  applications 
rather  than  scholarly  expositions."  ^  Other  extenuat- 
ing facts  are  his  prayerful  spirit,  his  toilsome  effort, 
and  his  recognition  that  Scripture  is  its  own  inter- 
preter. When  all  is  said,  however,  there  remains  the 
irrepressible  regret  that  "  the  eagle  eye  of  Origen " 
should  have  been  so  enchanted  by  a  veritable  Will-o'- 
the-wisp,  and  that  his  colossal  abilities  should  have 
been  so  largely  devoted  to  the  building  up  of  a  false 
system  of  interpretation. 

'  Salmoad,  ait.  "  Hermeneutics"  in  Ency.  Brif. 


CHAPTER    IV 

Religious  Philosophy  of  Origen 

The  view  taken  by  Origen  of  the  relation  of  Christian 
doctrine  to  Greek  philosophy  is  substantially  that  of 
Clement,  although  he  rates  philosophers  somewhat 
lower  than  does  that  wi-iter.  Truth  he  regards  as  a 
constant  quantity,  which  from  the  beginning  has  been 
imparted  to  man  only  in  scattered  rays.  Of  these 
human  wisdom,  as  embodied  in  the  cii'cle  of  the  sciences, 
and  in  the  secret  doctrines  of  Chaldseans  and  Egyptians, 
Jews  and  Greeks,  has  supplied  its  quota.  Divine 
wisdom,  however,  as  revealed  in  Christianity,  im- 
measurably transcends  the  philosophical  knowledge 
of  men.  The  Christian  doctrine  embraces  whatever 
elements  of  truth  are  contained  in  the  Greek  philo- 
sophy, of  which  indeed  it  is  the  completion.  While 
philosophy  is  a  divinely  ordained  means  of  arriving  at 
the  truth,  and  is  closely  related  to  Christianity  in 
respect  of  the  fundamental  ideas  of  God  and  moral 
justice  which  have  been  written  indelibly  by  the 
Creator  upon  the  human  heart,  it  is  far  from  being  of 
uniform  value.  In  the  form  of  Epicureanism,  for 
example,  it  is  even  hostile  to  the  truth ;  in  that  of 
Platonism,  it  partly  coincides  with  it.  Where  its 
development  has  been  pernicious,  this  result  is  due  to 

84 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY  OF  ORIGEN    85 

its  corruption  by  demoniac  transmitters  and  hniiian 
teachers.  On  the  other  hand,  besides  the  affinity 
necessarily  existing  between  philosophy  and  Chris- 
tianity as  being  both  of  divine  origin,  there  is  also  the 
measure  of  resemblance  caused  by  the  borrowing  of 
philosophical  doctrines  from  the  Old  Testament. 

The  religious  philosophy  of  Origen  is  thus  marked 
by  a  finely  tolerant  spirit.  Although  viewing  the 
Scriptures  as  the  sole  guaranteed  source  of  truth, 
he  shared  Clement's  opinion  that  human  systems 
of  thought  also  miglit  be  at  least  relatively  true. 
Wherever  a  spark  of  good  appeared,  these  Alexandrian 
teachers  gave  it  acknowledgment.  As  the  principle  of 
perfection,  their  Christian  gnosis  tauglit  them  "  to 
honour  the  whole  creation  of  God  Almighty,"  and  to 
view  ever3'thing  from  the  relative  standpoint.  They 
were  students  of  Greek  culture,  and  had  a  high  idea 
of  what  was  becoming  in  a  philosopher.  "  Origen 
could  already  estimate  the  relative  progress  made  by 
mankind  within  the  Church  as  compared  with  tho.se 
outside  her  pale,  saw  no  gulf  between  the  growing 
and  the  perfect,  and  traced  the  whole  advance  to 
Christ."  1 

If,  however,  he  recognised  philosophy  as  furnishing 
a  series  of  steps  in  the  right  direction,  Origen  was  also 
strongly  convinced  of  its  inade<}uacy.  While  it  formed 
an  introduction  to  the  higher  wisdom,  it  was  at  best 
an  uncertain  guide.  Philosophers  did  not  succeed  in 
conveying  the  truth  to  the  popular  mind ;  they  were 
like  physicians  who  attend  only  to  the  health  of  a 
select  few  and  neglect  the  multitude.  After  uttering 
in  the  schools  the  grandest  arguments  about  God,  they 
^  Hainack,  Hist,  of  Docjma,  ii.  p.  338. 


S6     ORIGKN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

straightway  tVU  into  idolatry  aiul  sanctioned  poly- 
theism. This  was  in  sharp  contrast  to  the  practice  of 
the  very  lowest  Jew.  The  secret  of  the  success  of 
the  unlettered  disciples  of  Jesus  in  impressin<^  men  of 
various  nationalities,  as  compared  with  the  failure  of 
the  Greek  philosophers  to  win  adherents,  lay  in  the 
fact  that  in  the  one  case  the  speakers  possessed  a 
certain  God-given  power  which  was  lacking  in  the 
other.  This  was  none  other  than  the  power  of  the 
Logos,  which  everywhere  manifested  itself  in  the 
Church  by  abolishing  polytheism,  and  bringing  about 
the  moral  betterment  of  gospel  hearers  in  proportion  to 
their  capacity  and  willingness  to  receive  that  which  is 
good.  In  earlier  times  also  through  i\ro.ces  the  power 
of  divine  revelation  had  been  shown  on  a  national 
scale — "  Would  that  the  Jews  had  not  transgressed 
the  law,  and  slain  the  prophets,  and  conspired  against 
Jesus :  we  should  then  have  had  a  model  of  that 
heavenl}'  commonwealth  which  Plato  has  sought  to 
describe ;  although  I  doubt  whether  he  could  have 
accomplished  as  much  as  was  done  by  Moses  and  those 
who  followed  him."  ^ 

The  true  goal  of  the  Greek  philosophy,  as  well  as  of 
the  revealed  wisdom  proclaimed  by  the  prophets,  Avas 
the  incarnation  of  Jesus,  which  focusscd  all  previous 
self-connauuications  of  the  Eternal  Reason.  A  know- 
ledge essentially  devoid  of  error  is  thus  guaranteed 
to  us.  Men  could  not  reach  this  anterior  to  Christ's 
coming,  because  it  was  unattainable  apart  from  the 
expiation  of  the  world's  sin.  Without  Him  perfect 
knowledge  is  an  impossibility.  Clement  held  that  a 
man's  life  is  likely  to  be  virtuous  in  proportion  to  his 
^  Contra  Cclsum,  v.  43. 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY  OF  ORIGEN     S; 

knowledge  of  the  truth.  Origcn  makes  an  advance 
upon  this  position  by  identifying  human  enligliten- 
ment  with  redemption.  Men  wallc  in  light  and  practise 
virtue  through  Him  who  is  the  truth,  and  who  has 
fulfdled  all  righteousness.  By  the  union  of  the  divine 
and  human  natures  in  His  own  person,  Christ  has 
become  the  source  of  the  new  life  of  humanity. 

The  cliaracter  of  Origen's  theological  system  as  a 
philosophy  of  revelation  accounts  for  the  Gnostic  and 
Neoplatonic  features  mixed  up  with  it.  His  specula- 
tions often  recall  the  theosophic  dreams  and  fantastic 
cosmology  of  Valentinus,  and  his  methods  are  those 
of  that  prominent  heresiarch,  and  of  the  Neoplatonic 
schools.  In  his  doctrine  of  the  pre-existenco  of  souls, - 
in  his  theory  of  a  threefold  division  of  human  nature,- 
and  in  his  highly  symbolic  interpretation  of  the 
story  of  Paradise,  his  Christian  theology  clearly  shows 
affinity  with  those  systems.  The  agreement,  however, 
is  not  in  principle,  but  is  due  to  the  adoption  in 
common  of  particular  Platonic  tenets.  He  is  even 
more  of  an  idealistic  philosopher  than  Plato  himself. 
At  the  same  time  he  holds  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  to  be  the  only  absolutel}^  reliable 
sources  for  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  the  truth,  and 
there  is  something  to  be  said  for  the  contention  that  in 
Origen  nuich  has  been  ascribed  to  the  influence  of 
Platonism  that  admits  of  a  simpler  and  more  natural 
explanation.^  According  to  this  view  the  doctrine  of 
the  pre-cxistence  of  the  soul,  for  instance,  was  not 
peculiar  to  Pythagoras  and  Plato,  but  was  also  current 
in  the  East,  and  may  quite  well  have  been  suggested  to 
Origen  by  certain  Jewish  apocrypha  in  which  there 
'  Denis,  Dc  la  Philosojihic  cVOrigine,  p.  57. 


88     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

was  a  largo  admixture  of  Oriciital  ideas.  So  also 
with  roo-ard  to  the  ultimate  triumph  of  tlie  good,  the 
conversion  of  tlic  devil,  etc.  The  exaggerated  and 
axiomatic  significance  attached  by  Origen  to  certain 
New  Testament  texts  is  further  pointed  to  as  the  real 
basis  of  many  of  his  semi-Christian,  semi-Oriental 
theories.  He  finds,  e.g.,  the  distinction  of  the  upper, 
intermediary,  and  infernal  worlds  in  the  saying  of 
St.  Paul,  "that  in  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee 
should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  on  earth, 
and  things  under  the  earth"  (Phil.  ii.  10);  and  the 
pre-existence  of  the  soul  in  the  statements:  "When 
Elizabeth  heard  the  salutation  of  Mary,  the  babe  leaped 
in  her  womb  "  (Luke  i.  41),  and  "  There  was  a  man 
sent  from  God  whose  name  was  John"  (John  i.  G). 
Endowed  with  a  very  bold  and  lively  imagination,  and 
breathing  so  constantly  the  atmosphere  of  the  super- 
natural, there  was  really  no  limit  to  the  chimerical 
notions  which  he  was  able  to  read  into  and  extract 
from  the  texts  of  Scripture.  But  his  doctrines  occupy 
another  level,  and,  from  whatever  sources  they  are 
drawn,  all  bear  the  stamp  of  his  own  individuality. 
While  refusing  to  believe  that  in  any  of  its  main 
essentials  Origen  derived  his  doctrinal  system  either 
from  Plato  or  the  Stoics,  Denis  willingly  concedes  that 
its  linguistic  framework,  as  well  as  many  "  hypotheses 
which  are  like  the  stage-dressing  of  his  ideas,"  are 
borrowed  from  the  Greek  philosophers.  He  maintains, 
however,  that  the  doctrines  themselves,  as  distinct 
from  their  philosophical  dress,  were  dei-ived  from  other 
sources.  Although  the  great  Alexandrian  owes  his 
idealism  to  Plato,  whether  directly  or  through  the 
medium  of  the  Gnostics,  it  is  not  according  to  this  view 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY  OF  ORIGEN     89 

permissible  to  go  into  detailed  analysis  so  as  to  say 
of  particular  doctrines,  "  This  Origcn  borrowed  from  ■> 
the  Stoics,  that  from  Plato."  For  the  rest,  they  are 
severally  stated  with  much  logical  acumen,  and  even 
where  not  originally  evolved  by  his  own  mind,  present 
combinations  so  novel,  adjustments  so  exact,  and  trans- 
formations so  profound,  as  to  make  them  rank  with  the 
most  notewoithy  contributions  to  theological  thought 
ever  given  to  the  woi-ld. 

While,  however,  in  103'alty  to  the  Church's  rule  of 
faith  ho  accepts  the  gospel  as  in  itself  "  the  power  of 
God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth,"  Origen 
also  attaches  the  greatest  value  to  a  scientific  con- 
ception of  Christianity.  Hence  the  union  in  him  of  the 
Platonic  philosopher  with  the  orthodox  traditionalist. 
Deeming  it  to  be  the  object  of  Christianity  that  men 
should  become  wise,  he  not  only  asserts  the  rights  of 
science  in  the  Church,  but  distinctly  subordinates  faith  <• 
to  knowledge,  and  regards  the  former  as  a  stage  in  the 
Christian  life  relatively  inferior  to  the  latter.  For  this 
position  he  finds  ample  warrant  in  Scripture,  which 
contains  many  enigmatical  and  dark  sayings  expressly 
designed  to  exercise  the  understanding  of  its  readers. 
The  content  of  the  Church's  faith  thus  demands  to 
be  idealised,  and  the  most  suitable  appliances  for  this 
purpose  are  the  methods  of  the  Greek  philosophers. 
><A.s  the  revelation  of  the  highest  reason,  Christianity^ 
must  lend  itself  to  elucidation  by  the  science  of  i-eason- 
ing,  and,  in  fact,  it  admits  of  being  stated  in  clear 
dogmatic  propositions.  To  attain  to  such  a  systematic 
grasp  of  ideas  and  doctrines  is  to  reach  the  highest 
stage  of  the  Christian  life.  This,  however,  Origcn  no 
longer  designates  gnosis,  but  ivisdom.y/The  spread  of 


90     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

Gnostic  heresy  had  apparently  rendered  it  desirable  to 
employ  a  term  not  so  liable  to  be  misconstrued  as  that 
Avhich  had  been  used  by  Clement.  In  his  public  teach- 
ing that  writer  had  also  withheld  more  of  this  higher 
knowledge  than  did  Origen,  who  considered  it  the  only 
vital  Christianity,  and  therefore  showed  more  eagerness 
to  impart  it  to  all. 

/A  theory  of  Christianity  which  emphasised  the  dis- 
tinction between  piLs^i's  and  (jnosis  required  twofold 
expression.  Its  teachers  used  one  language  for  the 
people  and  another  for  the  initiated^' The  idea  of  an 
exoteric  and  an  esoteric  Christianity  will  always  be 
repulsive  to  some  as  savouring  of  dishonesty ;  yet 
there  is  another  side  to  the  matter.  Even  the  modern 
Christian  teacher  must  suit  liis  language  to  his  audience. 
A  professor  of  divinity  does  not  discourse  to  his 
students  as  he  would  to  a  home  mission  gathering,  or 
even  to  an  ordinary  congregation.  •-l)ifFerent  stages  of 
attainment  in  Christian  kuoNvledge  call  for  difi'erent 
modes  of  treatment  on  the  part  of  Christian  teachers^ 
And  if  Origen  drew  a  clear  distinction  between  the 
simple  and  the  perfect,  he  at  all  events  did  not  separate 
the  two  classes  by  an  impassable  gulf.  On  the  con- 
trar}',  he  sought  to  bi-idge  over  the  distance  between 
them  by  proclaiming  the  entire  compatibility  of  the 
profoundest  scientific  culture  with  a  sincere  accept- 
ance of  the  gospel.  And  it  was  just  because  of  this 
that  he  was  so  successful  as  a  Christian  missionary  to 
the  Greeks.  It  would  be  wrong  to  say  that  he  pro- 
claimed two  Christianities  ^^'hat  he  really  asserted 
was  that  one  Christian  saw  much  more  in  Christianity 
than  another._^ 

No  doubt  Origen's  conception  of  Christianity  had  its 


RELIGIOUS   PHILOSOPHY  OF  ORIGEN    91 

drawbacks.     For  one  ihiui;'  iL  amounted  to  the  virtual 
obliteration  of  the  historical  clement  in  Holy  Scripture.  - 
Not  that  he  denies  in  the  majority  of  instances  the 
actual  occurrence  of   facts,  but  by  the  application  of 
his  hermeneutical  methods  he  robs  them  of  their  signi- 
licance.     Thus  even  the  Incarnation  is  emptied  of  its 
peculiar  value.     To  the  perfect,  Christ  is  nothing  more  ' 
than  the  manifestation  of  the  Loi^'os  who  has  been  from  ^ 
eternity  with  the  Father,  and  whose  activity  has  also  ' 
been  eternal.    It  is  not  as  the  Crucified  One,  but  merely' 
as  a  divine  teacher  that  He  is  of  consequence  to  the 
wise.     "  He  was  sent  indeed  as  a  physician  to  sinners, 
but  as  a  teacher  of  divine  mysteries  to  those  who  are 
already  pure,  and   who   sin   no   more."  ^     The   gospel 
records  are  accordingly   subjected    to  the  allegorising 
process,  with  the  result  that   their   true   and   simple 
story  disappears.      Indeed  the  gospel   itself   is  repre- 
sented  as  merely  "  the   shadow   of   the   mysteries   of 
Christ " ;  as  such  it  occupies  a  middle  position  between 
the  law  and  "the  eternal  gospel"  (Rev.  xiv.  6),  which, 
as  the  full  revelation  of  those  mysteries,  is  the  possession 
only  of  the  spiritual  Church.     "  In  the  final  utterances"*- 
of  religious  metaphj-sics  ecclesiastical  Christianity,  with  - 
the  exception  of  a  few  compromises,  is  thrown  oft'  as  a 
husk.      The  objects  of   religious  knowledge  have   no  - 
historj'^,  or  rather — and   this   is   a   genuinely  Gnostic  ~ 
and  Neoplatonic  idea — they  have  only  a  supramundane_^ 
one."  "^ 

As  a  substitute  for  the  outward  revelation  and  ordi- 
nances which  form  the  distinguishing  characteristics  of 
positive  religion,  Origen  makes  use  of  the  results  of  the  - 
speculative  cosmology  of  the  Greeks.     He  is  familiar 

^  Contra  Cdsum,  iii.  62.         -  Harnaok,  History  of  Dogma ,  ii.  p.  343. 


92     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

with  the  various  mythological  and  philosophical  theories 
as  to  the  origin  of  the  universe  and  the  nature  of  matter. 
That  we  must  largely  trace  to  this  source  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  marvellous  and  strangely  complicated  picture 
of  the  world  ^  which  finds  a  place  within  his  broad  and 
idealistic  theolog}',  is  plain  to  every  reader  of  the  Contra 
Cclsum.  It  was  already  recognised  b}^  Porph3ay,  whom 
Eusebius  quotes  as  saying  of  Origen :  "  His  outward 
life  was  that  of  a  Christian  and  opposed  to  the  law, 
but  in  regard  to  his  views  of  things  and  of  the  Deity, 

'he  thought  like  the  Greeks,  inasmuch  as  he  introduced 
their  ideas  into  the  myths  of  other  peoples."  His  cos- 
mology, in  fact,  is  an  essential  part  of  his  theology.  To 
have  a  clear  idea  of  God  it  is  not  enough  to  think  of 
Him  abstractly  and  apart  from  His  relation  to  the 
world.     It  is  precisely  in  connection  with  the  latter 

.point  that  these  impressions  arc  produced  which  deter- 
mine the  real  standpoint  of  a  theologian,  and  show 
whether  he  is  pantheistic,  dualistic,  or  Christian.  That 
Origen  belongs  to  the  latter  category  is  proved  by  his 
contention  that  there  is  only  one  eternal  substance,  by 
his  conception  of  God  as  the  direct  Creator  of  the  world, 
and  by  his  view  of  Christ  as  the  God-Man  in  whom  and 
by  whom  all  things  consist. 

'i'he  moral  and  religious  ideal  set  forth  in  the  sj'stem 
of  Origen  is  one  which  has  its  roots  partly  in  Neopla- 
tonic  mysticism  and  partly  in  Holy  Scripture.  It  had 
long  been  a  favourite  theory  with  idealistic  philosophers 
that  the  most  perfect  life  open  to  man  is  that  which 
consists  solely  in  meditative  introspection  and  contem- 
plation of  the  eternal.  According  to  this  view  actions 
have  the  effect  of  entangling  us  jji  all  niannei'of  woi'ldly 
'  "L'esjjuce  de  poi'-nie  crtsmogoiiique  concn  jtaiOiigriie  "  (Denis,  p.  1G3). 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY  OF  ORIGEN    93 

concerns,  and  therefore  it  is  better  for  us  not  to  act,  but 
just  to  remain  absorbed  in  the  absokite  and  the  unseen, 
and  in  the  possession  of  a  cahn  tranquilHty  whicli 
more  than  anj'thing  else  tends  to  make  us  godhke. 
To  liave  need  of  nothing  is  to  be  in  closest  contact 
with  the  Deity ;  to  overcome  the  sensuous,  and  to  live 
in  the  habitual  contemplation  of  tlie  invisible,  is  to 
attain  at  length  the  final  aim  of  existence  in  ecstatic 
union  with  God.  This  is  the  view  of  life  that  prompted 
the  ancient  hermits  to  withdraw  from  the  world  and 
take  to  their  cells,  and  it  is  this  that  has  laid  the 
foundation  of  the  monastic  system  wherever  it  has 
been  practised.  Whether,  however,  this  abandonment 
of  the  active  for  the  contemplative  life  is  in  harmony 
with  the  truo  genius  of  Christianity  may  well  be 
doubted ;  its  note  is  not  that  of  an  isolated  self- 
sufficiency,  but  that  of  a  yearning  aspiration  after 
righteousness.  In  the  Alexandrian  Fathers  we  see 
the  union  of  both  tendencies.  While  with  Origen  the 
mystic  element  is  )iot  predominant,  it  is  certainly 
present,  and  there  can  be  no  mistake  as  to  his  "  hunger 
and  thirst  after  righteousness."  For  him  the  ideal  to 
be  sought  by  tlie  human  spirit  is  "the  state  without- 
sorrow,  the  state  of  insensibility  to  all  evils,  of  order 
and  peace — but  peace  in  God."  The  way  to  attain 
this  is  through  self-knowledge,  repression  of  the  sen- 
suous, and  due  cultivation  of  "  the  meditative  hour  " ; 
but  in  all  this  he  sees  nothing  inconsistent  with  the 
most  active  endeavours  to  promote  the  kingdom  of  j 
God.  Christian  pi'oductivity  is  a  necessary  conse- 
quence of  Christian  receptivity.  There  M'ill  always 
be  visible  fruits  of  the  power  of  Christ  working  in 
the  soul  in  the  shape  of  freewill  efforts  after  serving 


94     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

Goil  Jind  doiiii;  ^'ot)(l  to  the  bix'ilircn.     Tliruiigh  .such 
-  service,  througli  faith  in  and  fellowsliip  with  the  Logos, 
"  throu:;-li  loyal  subniis.sion  to  rrovidence,  and  tlirough 
^  the  desire  ol"  heaven,  the  spirit  of  man  becomes  godlike 
'  and  eternally  blessed.     Viewing  the  soul  as  the  mirror 
<.  of  Deity,  and  believing  that  througli  tlie  contemplation 
of  herself  the  secret  of  deification  is  to  be  found,  Origen 
uses  the  ethical  systems  of  Greek  philosophy  as  stepping- 
stones  towards  the  ultimate  attainment  of  this  high 
destiny. 

Worthy  of  note  also  in  this  connection  is  Origen's 
theory  of  knowledge  and  its  relation  to  faith.  In  his 
c:  view  knowledge  is  essentially  recollection.  It  is  the 
result  of  recalling  fundamental  truths  imprinted  on  the 
human  soul  by  the  Creator,  and  even  in  its  growth 
through  the  continued  energy  of  men's  minds  the 
divine  element,  i.a.  the  beneficent  influence  of  the 
J^ogos,  is  at  work.  In  this  way  knowledge  may  be 
gleaned  from  the  field  of  philosophy  as  well  as  from 
that  of  revelation.  It  was  this  conviction  that  led 
Origen  to  incorporate  so  man}^  philosophical  doctrines 
with  those  of  Scripture,  and  to  weave  them  into  one 
heterodox  system,  the  essential  harmony  of  which  in 
all  its  parts  was,  however,  probably  clear  enough  to  his 
own  mind.  And  if  he  did  admit  elements  alien  to  the 
genius  of  Christianity,  he  must  at  least  be  acquitted  of 
having  either  accepted  anything  directly  antagonistic 
to  it  or  sacrificed  any  of  its  fundamental  docrines. 

Faith  Origen  views  as  a  whole-hearted  belief  mani- 
festing itself  in  a  ready  obedience.     While  accepting 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone,  he  holds 
~  that  the  faith  which  does  not  influence  conduct  is  dead. 
A  living  faith  cannot  consist  with  continuance  in  sin, 


RELIGIOUS  PHILOSOPHY  OF  ORIGEN     95 

but  changes  the  whole  walk  and  conversation.  11"  we 
really  believe  in  Clirist  as  our  peace,  we  sliall  not  stir 
up  strife  ;  it"  we  believe  that  oi"  God  He  is  made  unto  us 
wisdom,  we  shall  not  turn  again  to  folly ;  if  we  believe 
that  He  is  the  poM'cr  of  God,  we  shall  not  remain  un- 
fruitful disciples.  Real  faith,  however,  may  be  perfect 
or  imperfect.  Of  the  former  description  was  that 
counted  to  Abraham  for  righteousness,  seeing  it  had 
already  accredited  itself  through  obedience;  of  the 
latter  is  that  of  all  who  have  still  the  spirit  of  fear 
and  have  not  received  tlie  spirit  of  sonship.  But  even 
in  its  most  imperfect  measure  real  faith  is  alwa}^s  im- 
planted in  tlic  soul  by  divine  power,  and  Avlien  the 
true  liglit  thus  comes  to  a  man  lie  will  not  fail  to 
advance  by  the  aid  of  human  learning  as  well  as 
through  the  enliglitenment  of  the  Holy  Gliost  to  an 
ever  clearer  insight  into  the  meaning  of  Scripture,  and 
to  an  ever  fuller  apprehension  of  the  divine  glor}^  of 
the  Redeemer.  Faith  thus  gradually  develops  into 
knowledge,  and  tlie  life  of  faith  advances  with  every 
increase  in  the  number  of  doctrinal  projiositions  the 
trutli  of  which  is  recognised.  While  in  its  essential 
content  Faith  need  not  embrace  more  than  the  main 
articles  of  the  Christian  creed,  its  objects  are  alike 
numerous  and  manifold,  and  as  a  divinely  given  and 
gracious  power  within  us  it  enables  tlie  true  Christian 
firndy  to  grasp  tlic  truth  in  all  its  bearings.  When 
Faith  and  Reason  thus  combine  their  forces,  the  re- 
sultant product  is  Christian  science.  In  this  higher 
knowledge  there  arc  two  main  stages  —  gnosis  or 
understanding,  and  wisdom  or  the  direct  spiritual 
vision  of  truth. 

In   the    investigation   of    truth    there   is,    however, 


96     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

no  liiialiiy.  Even  to  zeal  reinforced  by  grace  God's 
judgments  are  unsearchable,  and  His  ways  past  finding 
out.  Human  knowledge  at  its  highest  reach  is  l)ut 
patchwork ;  we  see  in  riddles,  we  know  in  part.  The 
figures  we  deal  in  only  take  us  midway  between  the 
shadows  of  the  law  and  the  truth  itself.  As  sinful 
mortals  we  have  necessarily  here  a  limited  horizon,  but 
through  the  gateway  of  death  the  perfected  Christian 
shall  pass  to  a  state  of  larger  knowledge  in  which  he 
shall  see  no  longer  through  a  glass  obscurely,  but  face 
to  face.  The  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge 
formerly  hidden  from  his  view  shall  then  be  thrown 
open  to  him  ;  as  a  veritable  son  of  the  Highest  he  shall 
fully  understand  the  Scriptures  and  feed  upon  the  very 
food  of  Christ. 

The  main  idea  underlying  the  religious  philosophy  of 

*"  Origen  is  that  of  the  indestructible  unity  of  God  and 

'  all  spiritual  essence.  If,  therefore,  the  created  spirit 
in  the  exercise  of  its  own  free  will  shall  fall  away 
from  God,  it  must  still  return  to  being  in  Him.     The 

-  ultimate  deification  of  humanity  is  a  leading  idea  in 
the  Greek  theology.  At  the  same  time  there  is  no 
confounding  of  Creator  and  created  ;  Origen  distinctly 

*■  contrasts  the  one  transcendent  Essence  with  the  visible 
creation.  He  does  not,  with  many  pagan  philosophers, 
conceive  God  as  existing  at  an  infinite  remove  and  in 
absolute  isolation  from  the  world.  On  the  contrary,  he 
maintains  that,  as  revealed  in  Christ,  He  is  innnanent 
in  the  whole  creation.  We  live  and  move  and  have 
our  being  in  God  just  because  by  His  power  and  reason 
He  fills  and  holds  together  all  the  diversity  of  the 
world.  The  task  to  which  Origen  addresses  himself 
thus  resendjles  in  certain  respects  that  attempted  by 


RELIGIOUS   rillLOSOPIIY  OF  ORIGEN     97 

the  Neoplatonists ;  for  him  as  for  tliciu  the  problem  is 
how  to  establish  the  organic  unity  of  God  and  the 
world,  and  counteract  the  dualism  of  Oriental  theo- 
sophics.  In  general,  the  system  of  Origen  has  much 
athnity  with  that  of  Valentinus,  but  is  distinguished 
from  the  latter  by  the  prominence  given  to  the  idea  of' 
the  freedom  of  the  individual  will,  and  by  the  rigid 
exclusion  of  a  fall  as  applied  to  any  part  of  the  divine 
pleroma  itself.  The  effort  to  maintain  along  with  His 
absolute  goodness  the  absolute  causality  of  God,  and  to 
retain  the  transcendental  nature  of  the  human  spirit 
while  rejecting  Stoic  pantheism,  has  driven  every  form 
of  mysticism  to  a  twofold  conception  of  the  spiritual, 
and  from  this  ambiguity  the  system  of  Origen  is  not 
free.  As  tlie  unfolding  of  the  divine  essence,  the 
spiritual  belongs  to  God ;  as  that  which  is  created,  it 
stands  in  contrast  to  Him. 

Origen  displays  much  ingenuity  in  bringing  his 
essentially  heterodox  system  into  line  with  tlie  rule  of 
faith  as  already  elaborated  by  Irengeus,  who  conceives 
revelation  as  the  history  of  salvation,  and  seeks  to  find 
in  the  literal  sense  of  Scripture  and  Cluircli  tradition 
the  divine  "categorical  imperative"  for  men.  It  is 
usual  to  regard  Origen's  philosophy  as  embodying  (1) 
the  doctrine  of  God  and  the  unfoldings  of  His  essence, 
(2)  the  doctrine  of  the  Fall  and  its  consequences,  (3)  the 
doctrine  of  redemption  and  restoration.^  Denis'  division 
into  (1)  Theology,  (2)  Cosmology,  (3)  Anthropology, 
(4)  Teleology,  while  it  covers  the  ground,  is  somewhat 
too  suggestive  of  the  clear-cut  categories  of  modern 
systematic  theology. 

^  So,  e.g.,  Redepenning  and  Haruack. 


CHAPTER   V 

The  Writings  of  Origen 

Origen  wielded  the  pen  of  a  ready  writer.  He  was 
probably  a  more  voluminous  author  than  even  moderns 
like  Calvin  or  Richard  Baxter.  It  is,  of  course,  impos- 
sible to  accept  the  traditional  figure  of  six  thousand  as 
any  indication  of  the  real  number  of  his  works;  but 
Jerome's  (;[uestion,  "  Which  of  us  can  read  all  that  he 
has  written  ?  "  is  a  sufficient  testimony  to  the  magnitude 
of  his  literary  labours.  As  a  result,  perhaps,  of  the 
growing  suspicion  attaching  to  his  name  in  the  Church, 
the  greater  part  of  his  writings  has  perished ;  and 
much  of  what  we  do  possess  is  in  the  form  of  a  by  no 
means  accurate  translation  by  Rufinus.  The  writings 
of  Origen  are  not  limited  to  any  one  department  of 
theological  investigation ;  they  range  over  the  entire 
field.  Much,  however,  has  been  erroneously  ascribed 
to  him,  as,  e.g.,  the  Philosoj^humemc  or  Refutation  of 
all  Heresies,  which  in  tone  and  language  appears  to 
be  a  Latin  product  rather  than  a  Greek,  and  the 
Dialogues  of  one  Adamantius  De  recta  in  Deum 
fide.  That  he  should  have  been  the  reputed  author 
of  the  latter  work  within  a  century  after  his  death 
is  scarcely  surprising  in  view  of  the  fact  that  even 
during    his    lifetime    he    had    to    complain    of    undue 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  99 

liberties  being  taken  alike  with  his  works  and   with 
his  name. 


i.  Origen's  Contributions  to  Textual  Criticis^n 

Jewisli  opinion  witli  reference  to  the  Septuagint  had 
been  gradually  changing.  For  long  this  translation 
enjoyed  great  popularity  among  the  Hellenists,  and 
seems  to  have  been  read  even  in  some  Palestinian 
synagogues.  Josephus  makes  extensive  use  of  it.  But 
when  by  its  help  it  was  sought  to  establish  the  truth 
of  Christianity  as  against  Judaism,  the  Jews  began  to 
repudiate  it  as  a  mutilated  rendering  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  and  gave  preference  to  other  translations, 
especially  to  that  of  Aquila,  which  was  more  literal 
and  Hebraistic.  Traces  of  disputes  between  Jews 
and  Christians  regarding  the  LXX  occur  as  early  as 
Justin's  time  ;  ^  and  a  century  later,  wdien  Origen  was  at 
tlie  height  of  his  activity,  the  advocates  of  Christianity 
had  constantly  flung  in  their  teeth  the  taunt  that  the 
proof  texts  they  adduced  either  did  not  exist,  or  were 
not  recognisable  in  the  Hebrew  original.  Through 
frequent  collisions  with  Jewish  opponents  who  en- 
trenched themselves  behind  this  position,  Origen  must 
soon  have  become  cognisant  of  the  corrupt  state  of  the 
LXX  text  in  the  MSS.  then  current.  Its  wide  circula- 
tion, the  frequency  and  haste  with  which  copies  were 
made,  and  the  tendency  of  transcribers  arbitrarily  to 
add  or  omit,  to  alter  or  improve,  produced  a  tantalising 
crop  of  "  various  readings,"  and  even  in  Origen's  time 
must  have  rendered  the  recovery  of  the  original  text  a 
virtual  impossibility.  Yet,  so  far  as  it  was  practicable, 
'  Dialogue  with  Tryjiho,  cliaps.  71-73. 


lOO     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

the  Herculean  task  of  a  critical  restoration  was  under- 
taken by  tliis  dauntless  teacher  of  Alexandria.  As  an 
example  of  sheer  pluck  and  monumental  industry  there 
is  perhaps  nothing  in  the  annals  of  scholarship  to 
compare  with  this  first  achievement  in  the  field  of 
biblical  criticism.  In  entering  upon  this  work,  at 
which  he  toiled  for  eight  and  twenty  years,  Origen's 
aim  was  partly  critical  and  partly  polemical.  On  the 
one  hand,  he  aimed  at  the  improvement  of  the  text 
of  the  LXX  by  providing  a  recension  more  reliable 
than  the  text  of  any  single  manuscript  then  existing ; 
on  the  other  hand,  he  sought  to  exhibit  the  real  state  of 
the  case  as  between  the  LXX  and  the  Hebrew  text,  so 
that  Christians  might  no  longer  be  at  a  disadvantage  in 
their  disputations  with  the  Jews.  The  critical  task  was 
the  necessary  preliminary  to  the  securing  of  the  con- 
troversial vantage-ground  desired. 

Financed  and  encouraged  by  Ambrosius,  Origen 
began  to  collect  MSS.  of  the  Septuagint.  His  collation 
of  these  revealed  an  amount  of  wanton  divergence  that 
rendered  it  hopeless  to  arrive  at  the  true  text  by  mere 
comparison  of  MSS.  Nor,  believing  as  he  did  that  the 
Hebrew  text  had  been  tampered  with  by  the  later 
Jews,  could  he  hope  by  its  means  to  reconstruct  the 
Greek  text  in  its  original  form,  although  in  passages 
where  there  could  be  no  reason  to  suspect  intentional 
falsification,  the  Hebrew  text  might  prove  a  valuable 
aid.  There  remained,  liowever,  one  other  important 
factor  in  the  case.  This  was  the  existence  of  several 
Greek  translations  of  the  Old  Testament  other  tlian  the 
Alexandrian.  Reference  has  already  been  made  to  that 
of  Aquila,  a  Jewish  proselyte  of  Sinope,  which  appeared 
during  the  reign  of  Hadrian,  and  was  afterwards  issued 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  loi 

ill  a  second  edition  even  more  IlelDraistic  than  tlic 
first.  Half  a  ceiitiiiy  later,  Tlieodotion,  au  Ebiunite  of 
Ephesus,  publiblied  what  is  practically  a  revised  edition 
of  the  LXX  with  a  new  translation  of  the  Book  of 
Daniel,  which  entirely  superseded  the  older  Alexandrian 
version,  and  is  still  printed  in  copies  of  the  LXX. 
Shortly  afterwards  a  third  Greek  translation  was 
executed  by  Symniachus,  also  an  Ebionite,  and  of 
Samaritan  extraction.  His  translation  is  freer  than 
Aquila's,  and  is  also  characterised  by  greater  elegance 
and  purer  Greek.  In  addition  to  these  Origen  made 
use  of  other  three  anonymous  versions,  known,  in 
accordance  with  the  position  assigned  to  them  in  his 
great  work,  as  the  Fifth,  Sixth,  and  Seventh.  Of  the 
latter,  however,  he  only  makes  partial  use ;  possibly 
they  were  incomplete,  or  the  copies  which  he  possessed 
may  have  been  so.  One  of  them  was  found  by  him 
at  Jericho;  another  he  discovered  at  Nicopolis,  while 
journej'ing  to  Greece ;  when  and  where  he  secured 
the  third  is  uidcnown.  All  of  them  were  probably 
older,  as  they  were  also  more  of  the  nature  of  free 
paraphrases,  than  the  translations  of  Tlieodotion  and 
Symniachus.  While  unable  to  adjudge  any  one  of 
these  versions  to  be  in  itself  superior  to  the  LXX, 
Origen  saw  how  the  latter  might  be  corrected  and 
supplemented  by  comparison  with  them  as  well  as 
with  the  Hebrew.  They  were  more  or  less  based  upon 
(presumably  ditferent  texts  of)  the  LXX,  and  had  not 
as  yet  suffered  from  arbitrary  perversions.  Having 
collected  the  available  MSS.,  Origen  set  to  work  upon 
Ids  great  edition  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  usually 
called  the  Hcxai')la,  from  the  circumstance  that  each 
page  consisted  of  six  parallel  columns,  showing  at  a 


102     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

<rlancc  the  whole  of  the  material  for  arrivinsj  at  tlic 
most  reliable  text  of  tlie  Sept\ui<^int,  and  for  ascertaiii- 
incr  how  far  that  text  reall}'  coincides  with,  or  deviates 
from,  tlie  original  Hebrew.  The  first  column  to  the 
right  contained  the  Hebrew  text,  the  second  the  same 
text  transliterated  into  Greek,  the  third  the  translation 
of  Aquila,  the  fonrth  that  of  Symmaclms,  the  fifth  the 
Septuagint,  and  the  sixth  the  version  of  Theodotion. 
While  the  entire  Old  Testament  was  thus  dealt  with, 
certain  of  the  books  composing  it  were  set  down  in 
two,  and  in  some  instances  tliree,  additional  columns 
containing  the  so-called  Fifth,  Sixth,  and  >Se\cnth 
versions.^ 

In  forming  his  Hexaplar  text  Origen  proceeded  on 
the  principle  of  retaining  the  original  LXX,  and  making 
use  of  critical  signs  to  indicate  how  and  where  it 
differed  from  tlie  Hebrew.  Wliat  was  lacking  in  the 
LXX,  but  occurred  in  the  Hebrew  and  in  one  or  more 
of  the  other  translators,  was  marked  with  an  asterisk 
(*)  and  the  name  of  the  source ;  -  what  stood  in  the 
LXX,  but  had  no  equivalent  in  the  Hebrew,  he  marked 
with  an  obelus  (^).3  Where  different  MSS.  of  the 
LXX  deviated  from  one  anotlier,  lie  gave  preference 

^  See  specimen  page  in  De  Wette's  Introduction  to  the  Old  Trsfamenf, 
01"  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Itomem  Biograjihy  ctnd  Mytho- 
logy. 

2  These  lactmce  were  supplied  mostly  from  Theodotion,  but  not  seldom 
from  A(juila,  and  sometimes  from  Symmaclms. 

^  "  In  later  copies  these  marks  were  unfortunately  often  omitted. 
The  Hexaplar  text  became  mixed  up  with  the  true  LXX,  and  the 
modern  critic  is  sometimes  tcmiited  to  forget  how  much  the  Eastern 
Cliurcli  owed  to  this  first  attempt  to  go  back  to  tlie  Hebrew  Old  Testa- 
ment, in  his  impatience  at  the  obliteration  by  the  adoption  of  Hexaplar 
corrections  of  imjiortant  divci-gcncos  of  the  LXX  Irom  the  JIassoretic 
text"  (W.  Robertson  Smith,  art.  "Bible"  in  Uncy.  Brit.). 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  103 

to  the  reading'  which  had  the  support  of  the  other 
translators. 

Origen  also  prepared  another  edition  of  the  Old 
Testament  containing  only  the  text  of  the  Scptuagint, 
and  the  versions  of  Aquila,  Thcodotion,  and  Sym- 
machus.  This  was  arranged  on  the  same  plan  as  the 
larger  work,  and  was  known  as  the  Tetrcqjla.  As  to 
its  precise  relation  to  the  Hexapla,  however,  scholars 
are  not  agreed.  Some  regard  it  as  the  earlier  work 
upon  which  the  Hexapla  was  based,  and  as  having 
contained  the  LXX  in  the  usual  text  merely  ;  according 
to  others,  it  was  issued  later  than,  and  as  a  minor 
edition  of,  the  Hexapla,  with  the  improved  text  of  the 
LXX  reproduced  from  the  latter,  but  without  the 
critical  signs  and  the  suggested  additions  and  omissions. 
To  both  works  Origen  supplied  short  marginal  notes,  a 
large  proportion  of  which  consisted  of  mystical  explana- 
tions of  Hebrew  proper  names,  while  some  appear  to 
have  contained  a  Greek  version  of  readings  found  in 
the  Samaritan  and  Syriac  texts. 

Little  now  remains  of  these  great  early  monuments 
of  Chi'istian  erudition.  They  were  too  huge  for  tran- 
scription, and  seem  to  have  perished  in  the  destruction 
of  Cffisarea  by  the  Arabians  in  653.  About  the  begin- 
ning of  the  third  century  they  were  brought  to  that 
city  and  placed  in  the  library  of  Pampliilus,  who  in 
collaboration  with  Eusebius  extracted  the  Hexaplar 
text  of  the  LXX,  along  with  its  diacritical  signs,  etc., 
and  circulated  it  broadcast  among  the  churches  of 
Palestine.  Jerome,  who  speaks  of  these  MSS.  as 
Palcvstinensos  codices}  also  made  extensive  use  of  it. 
As  separate  copies  of  the  later  translations  were  also 
'  Fra/.  in  Paraliji. 


104     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

multii^lied,  many  Church  Fathers,  oven  without  access 
to  the  Hexaphi  itseli",  were  able  to  avail  themselves 
of  its  contents;  and  since  Petrus  ]\lorimis  (in  the 
sixteenth  century)  led  the  way,  several  attempts 
have  been  made  to  restore  as  far  as  possible  the 
lost  work  by  collecting  the  extant  frat^mcnts  from 
the  patristic  writings.^  In  the  seventli  century  a 
slavishly  literal  Syriac  translation  was  made  from 
the  Hexaplar  text  of  the  LXX,  retaining  the  Ori- 
genic  signs,  but  without  specifying  the  sources  from 
which  additions  have  been  adopted.  Arabic  versions 
liave  also  been  prepared  from  the  Greek  Hexaplar 
text. 

The  important  critical  work  done  by  Origen  for  the 
text  of  the  Septuagint,  his  strong  declaration  as  to  the 
want  of  uniformity  in  the  text  of  the  Gospels,-  and  a 
misunderstanding  of  Jerome's  references  to  "  the  MSS. 
of  Adamantius,"  ^  led  to  the  erroneous  belief  that  he 
also  prepared  a  recension  of  the  New  Testament  text. 
As  an  exegete,  of  course,  he  sought  the  correct  read- 
ings, and  the  great  amount  of  textual  variation  in  the 
Greek  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament  caused  him  care- 
fully to  revise  and  correct  obvious  errors  of  tran- 
scription in  his  own  manuscript  or  manuscripts.^  His 
reverence  for  the  letter  of  Scripture  prex'ented  him, 
however,  from  admitting  any  merely  conjectural 
emendations  into  his  text,  although  he  adopted  several 

■*  Cf.  especially  Field,  Orir/cnis  Hcxajiloriim  qivc  sujiersinit,  2  vols., 
Oxon,  1867-1874. 

2  In  Malt.  xix.  19. 

^  I.e.  the  MSS.  used  liy  Origen,  and  not  a  recension  of  liis  own. 

*  He  used  more  than  one,  and  did  not  confine  himself  to  one  "  family," 
the  text  of  Mark  used  liy  liim  for  in  Malt,  being  (accordinj,'  to  Griesliach) 
Western,  while  that  cited  in  the  in  Joann.  is  Alexandrian, 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  105 

in  liis  commentaries.^  It  is  furtlicr  probable  that 
Ori^cu'.s  ])uritie(l  text  was,  along  with  the  major  part 
of  his  works,  copied  by  Pamphilus,  that  it  was  i'ollowed 
by  Eusebius,  whose  quotations  so  remarkably  coincide 
with  those  of  Origen,  and  that  it  obtainccl  wide 
currency  in  the  fifty  copies  ordered  through  Eusebius 
by  the  emperor  Constantine.  Its  influence  is  even 
clearly  traceable  in  the  text  us  receptus  of  the  present 
day.  Still,  Origcn  made  no  such  recension  of  the  New 
Testament  as  he  did  of  the  text  of  the  LXX  in  the 
Jlexapla,  upon  wliich  his  fame  as  a  critic  mainly  rests. 
Biblical  scholarship  owes  to  him  a  lasting  debt  of 
gratitude  as  the  brilliant  pioneer  of  that  critical  treat- 
ment of  the  sacred  writings  which  has  jaclded  such 
valuable  results  in  our  time. 

ii.  Apologetic  Work  of  Orujen 

Towards  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Marcus  Aurelius 
(c.  176)  a  strong  attack  upon  Christianity  was  made 
in  a  work  entitled  'aa>)()/)5  Aoyog,  or  the  True  Discourse. 
This  was  written  by  Celsus,  doubtfully  identified  by 
some  with  Celsus  the  friend  of  Lucian,  who  wrote  a 
work  on  magic,  and  was  an  Epicurean.  The  s^'^idpoint 
of  the  author  of  the  True  Discourse  is  substantially 
Platonic.  Origen,  who  does  not  profess  to  know  the 
facts,  suggests  that  he  either  concealed  his  Epicurean 
views,  and  had  become  a  convert  to  a  better  system, 
or  was  merely  a  namesake  of  Celsus  the  Epicurean 

^  In  JIatt.  viii.  23  and  parallel  passacjcts  he  supports  the  reading 
Tepyeayji'Qu,  although  he  found  it  in  no  MS.,  and  in  John  i.  28,  misled 
by  a  popular  legend,  he  preferred  to  read  "  Bethabara  "  for  "  Bethany  "  ; 
but  altliough  both  of  these  readings  gained  currency  through  his  inllu- 
ence,  it  does  not  appear  that  he  actually  inserted  thcni  in  his  text. 


io6     ORIGEN   AND   GREEK  THEOLOGY 

(iv.  54);  and  wliilc  he  hiiii.scl£  on  the  whole  inclines  to 
the  former  of  these  alternatives,  the  real  state  of  the 
case  favours  the  latter. 

Great  interest  and  importance  attach  to  this  work  as 
the  first  onslaught  upon  Cliristianity  by  one  possessing 
a  fairly  competent  knowledge  of  its  real  character  and 
claims.  Celsus  perceived  that  it  was  a  power  which 
had  to  be  reckoned  with,  and  in  his  acute  and  able 
treatise,  which  anticipates  many  of  the  scientific  argu- 
ments used  against  Christianity  in  modern  times,  he 
virtually  urged  all  that  could  be  said  against  the 
religion  of  Christ  from  the  standpoint  of  cultured 
paganism.  Celsus  was  not  ill-fitted  for  his  task.  He 
was  familiar  not  only  with  Greek  thought  and  litera- 
ture, but  also  with  the  Christian  literature  of  the 
period  (iv.  52,  viii.  15);  he  had  some  acquaintance 
with  the  Old  Testament;  lie  knew  the  Four  Gospels, 
especially  that  of  Matthew ;  he  had  an  idea  of  the 
main  trend  of  the  Pauline  theology ;  he  had  obviously 
made  diligent  inquiries  among  the  Jews,  and  liml 
apparently  read  some  Jewish  and  apocryphal  works ; 
he  had  travelled  much,  and  had  frequently  conversed 
with  Christians.  Not  only,  however,  is  he  well  in- 
formed",' :t  ^''-'  scarcely  an  exaggeration  to  say  that  no 
more  plausible  dissertation  against  the  Christian  faith 
has  ever  been  penned.  As  an  illustration  of  the  art  of 
putting  an  opponent's  case  in  tlie  worst  light  it  is 
singularly  clever.  Yet  it  "  lost  its  whole  point "  owing 
to  a  serious  misconception  on  the  part  of  Celsus. 
Altliough  aware  of  the  distinction  between  "the  great 
Church  "  and  tlie  heretical  sects  (v.  59),  he  nevertheless 
treats  as  Christian  doctrine  whatever  any  sectary 
calling  liiiiiself  by  the  Christian  name  chose  to  teach, 


THE  WRITINGS   OF  ORIGEN  107 

and  is  thus  o'uilty,  as  Origon  complaius,  ui"  the  i^Tossesfc 
iiusreprcsentation  (iii.  13,  vi.  24). 

Anotliei"  interesting  feature  of  the  True  Discourse 
is  that  it  shows  Celsus  antl  Origen  to  have  been  not  so 
far  apart  in  their  fundamental  postulates.  Philoso- 
phically and  theologically,  they  were  more  closely 
allied  than  Origen  suspected,  and  he  is  sometimes  able 
to  meet  his  antagonist  only  by  speculatively  recon- 
structing the  Church  doctrine  in  dispute.  Both  were 
Platonists,  but  witli  a  difference.  As  an  eclectic 
philosopher  Celsus  strove  to  bring  his  Platonic  prin- 
ciples into  harmony  witli  the  doctrines  of  Heraclitus, 
I'ythagoras,  and  others;  Origen  rejected  the  dualism 
wliich  lay  at  the  root  of  these  systems.  Celsus  held 
that  matter  is  uncreated  and  coeternal  with  God ; 
Origen  taught  that  God  is  the  Creator  of  all  things. 
Even  where  their  presuppositions  do  coalesce  there  are 
divergences ;  yet  with  all  these  there  is  affinity. 
Celsus  conceived  God  as  pure  Intelligence,  re\'ealing 
Himself  in  the  totality  of  ideas,  of  which  the  world 
of  sense  is  the  reflection.  Sun,  moon,  and  stars  are 
revelations  of  God,  who  exercises  a  general  providence 
through  the  laws  of  nature,  and  a  special  care  for  His 
creatures  through  the  mediation  of  the  "  demons  "  or 
lower  deities.  These  are  the  gods  of  the  old  national 
religions,  Greek  and  barbarian  alike.  They  are  super- 
intending spirits  who  guard  the  various  quarters  of 
the  earth  (v.  25),  and  this  is  the  element  of  truth 
underlying  the  ancient  mythologies.  Some  of  them 
are  scarcely  higher  than  man,  others  are  almost  purely 
divine.  As  the  gods  of  those  who  can  rise  to  virtue 
but  not  to  knowledge,  their  relation  to  the  life  of  the 
soul  is  Gnostic  rather  than  Christian ;  yet  on  the  whole 


io8     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

tlicy  form,  in  tlic  .system  of  Celsus,  a  sort  of  counter- 
part to  the  Christian  dcjctrine  of  angels. 

If,  however,  Celsus  and  Origen  may  be  .said  to  have 
started  from  principles  common  to  both,  they  neverthe- 
less arrived  at  diametrically  opposite  results.  Origen 
was  all  for  Clu-ist ;  Celsus  liad  not  a  good  word  either 
for  Christ  or  for  Christians.  Even  for  the  impressive 
sufterings  of  the  former,  and  the  silent  martyrdom  of 
the  latter,  he  had  only  insulting  cpitliets  of  mockery 
and  scorn.  In  the  bitterness  of  his  attack  upon 
Christianity  he  at  once  outdistanced  all  its  opponents 
— many  of  whom,  e.g.  Plotinus  and  Porphyry,  acknow- 
ledge the  piety  of  Jesus  wliile  they  freely  lash  Kis 
followers — and  abandoned  the  ground  so  firmly  taken 
up  by  Origen,  who  evidently  grudged  him  the  name 
of  Platonist,  and  would  fain  have  classed  him  with 
the  less  honoured  Epicureans.  As  a  fierce  antagonist 
and  merciless  critic  of  the  Christian  'religion,  Celsus 
was  "the  Voltaire  of  the  second  century." 

Owing  to  the  extensive  verbatim  extracts  preserved 
in  Origen's  reply,  and  the  consecutive  method  therein 
ai.lopted,  we  can  form  a  tolerabl}'-  accurate  notion  of 
Celsus's  treatise  as  a  whole.  In  his  Introduction  he 
charges  Christians  with  maintaining  secret  associations 
in  violation  of  the  law,  and  then  proceeds  with  an  air 
of  impartiality  to  refer  to  their  doctrinal  and  ethical 
.systems.  The  one  is  of  barbarian  origin,  and  the  other 
contains  nothing  new.  The  attitude  of  Christians 
towards  idolatry  is  correct,  but  was  adopted  by 
Heraclitus  long  before  them.  C]iri.st  was  a  sorcerer, 
and  His  followers  practise  incantations.  One  might 
as  well  worship  the  phantoms  of  Hecate  as  exercise 
the    blind    faith    of    Christians,    who   say,   "Do   not 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  109 

examine,  but  believe."  In  order  furtlier  to  asperse 
the  origin  of  Christianity,  he  excludes  the  Jews  from 
tlie  eateij^ory  of  ancient  and  learned  nations  holding 
in  common  certain  rational  principles  by  means  of 
which  they  all  laid  some  stone  on  the  cairn  of  truth, 
and  asserts  that  Moses  borrowed  his  doctrines  and  laws 
from  Egyptian  and  other  sources.  In  the  main  body  of 
his  Discourse  Celsus,  availing  himself  of  the  a  fortiori 
argument,  attempts  to  show  (1)  that  Christianity  is 
untenable  from  the  standpoint  of  Judaism,  as  Jesus 
does  not  fit  the  character  of  the  Jewish  Messiah ;  and 
(2)  that  as  the  IMessianic  idea  of  i\\Q  Jews  is  in  itself 
preposterous,  Christianity  is  thus  deprived  of  the  last 
vestige  of  support.  While  this  expresses  accurately 
the  general  trend  of  his  work,  he  does  not  strictly 
follow  any  clear-cut  plan.  He  cared  little  for  artistic 
effect  so  long  as  he  could  <leal  a  deadly  blow  at 
Christianity.  To  strike  at  it  through  Judaism  showed 
consummate  skill  in  tactics,  although  in  view  of  the 
renewed  attack  from  his  own  philosophical  standpoint  it 
involved  a  certain  amount  of  repetition  and  confusion.^ 
The  main  part  of  his  work,  in  which  he  seeks  to 
destroy  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  Christianity, 
Celsus  supplements  by  a  critical  review  of  particular 
doofmas.  Amonof  the  doctrines  thus  dealt  with  are 
those  concerning  humility  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
a  supcrcelestial  God,  Satan,  the  Son  of  God,  the 
creation  of  the  world,  and  the  sending  of  God's  Son 
to  a  corrupt  race  like  the  Jews.  What  is  true  in 
Christianity  is  represented  as  an  inferior  version  of 
the  teaching  of  the  Greek  philosophy,  or  as  a  feeble 

'  For  a  careful  summary  of  the  True  Discourse  the  student  is  referred 
to  Patrick's  I'he  Apology  of  Origm. 


no     ORIGEN   AND   GRKEK   THEOLOGY 

echo  of  otlier  religions  systems.  All  the  ioli<^ious  con- 
ceptions of  Christians,  even  that  of  eternal  life,  are 
characterised  as  grossly  material,  and  many  of  them 
as  inconceivably  absurd.  The  True  Discourse  closes 
with  a  spirited  defence  of  pagan  worship,  and  a  some- 
what pathetic  appeal  to  Christians  to  co-operate  with 
the  king  as  loyal  citizens.  This  is  creditable  both  to 
the  sagacity  and  to  the  temper  of  its  author.  But 
"  when  the  persecutor  thus  found  his  weapons  break  in 
his  grasp,  and  stooped  to  appeal  to  the  generosity  of  his 
victim,  it  is  evident  that  the  battle  was  already  lost."  ^ 
During  the  reigns  of  Gordian  and  Philip  the  Arabian, 
the  Church  was  hai^pily  free  from  persecution.  The 
effect  of  this  was  to  accelerate  its  growth  to  an  extent 
which  could  hardly  fail  to  arouse  the  opposition  of  the 
heathen.  In  view  of  the  weight  attached  in  pagan 
circles  to  the  work  of  Celsus,  and  in  view  also  of  their 
own  incapacity,  many  Christians  avowedly  desiderated 
a  thoroughgoing  defence  of  their  faith,  to  which  they 
could  confidently  refer  every  gainsayer.  Accordingly, 
more  than  half  a  century  after  its  publication,  the 
work  of  Celsus  was  sent  by  Ambrosius  to  Origen  with 
a  request  that  he  would  refute  it.  Although  singularly 
well  equipped  for  the  task,  Origen  undertook  it  with 
reluctance,  believing  Christianity  to  be  its  own  best 
apology.  Yet  he  threw  himself  into  the  controversy 
with  characteristic  energy,  and  in  his  reply  kept  in 
view  not  only  the  demolition  of  the  arguments  of 
Celsus,  but  also  the  positive  presentation  of  Christian 
ti'utli.  Needless  to  say,  the  eight  books  which  compose 
the  treatise  against  Celsus,  and  which  are  extant  in 
the  original  Greek,  are  of  great  value  as  a  source  for 
'  Bigg,  Christian  Plalonids,  etc.,  p.  2G7. 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  iii 

the  history  and  condition  of  tlic  Churcli  in  the  first 
half  of  the  third  century.  They  are  marked  by  keen 
spiritual  insight,  vast  erudition,  masterly  ability,  and 
mature  thought.  They  form  the  Apology  par  excel- 
lence of  Christian  antiquity,  and  have  been  the  armoury 
from  which  weapons  have  all  along  been  drawn  for  the 
defence  of  the  Christian  faith.  Accordinor  to  Eusebius 
of  Csesarea,  Origen's  reply,  as  a  refutation  of  all  objec- 
tions, actual  or  possible,  past  or  future,  left  notliing  to 
be  desired  ;  while  centuries  later  it  was  still  spoken 
of  as  "  a  golden  work  which  can  never  be  sufficiently 
pi-aised."  ^  Still,  the  Contra  Celsuni  is  not  without  its 
defects.  The  brightness  of  Origen's  own  faith  in  the 
ultimate  triumph  of  Christianity  leads  him  to  under- 
rate his  antagonist,  of  whose  work,  in  spite  of  its 
learning  and  ability,  he  constantly  speaks  in  very  dis- 
paraging terms.  The  method  adopted  is  also  confusing 
and  tiresome  for  the  reader.  Departing  from  the 
systematic  treatment  at  first  contemplated  hy  him,  he 
takes  up  the  objections  of  Celsus  seriatim,  and  replies 
with  great  vehemence  to  each.  This  change  of  plan 
may  have  saved  time  to  Origen,  but  has  had  the 
opposite  effect  for  his  readers,  involving,  as  it  does, 
needless  repetition,  besides  marring  the  unity  of  the 
work.  "  As  the  book  stands,  we  have  all  the  materials 
for  an  apology,  but  they  lie  without  order  or  propor- 
tion ;  it  is  '  a  quarry  of  weighty  dogmatic  disquisitions,' 
but  not  a  symmetrical  building ;  and  it  is  only  by 
bringing  together  isolated  and  scattered  thoughts  that 
we  can  ascertain  what  Origen  taught  on  the  great 
problems  of  Christian  Apologetics."  ^     It  must  further 

1  Voss,  quoted  by  Fabricius,  Delectus  Argumentorvm,  p.  63. 
-  Patrick,  The  Ai)ologij  of  Orirjcn,  p.  119. 


112      ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  TIIEOEOGY 

be  admitted  that  in  details  Origen's  reasoning  occasion- 
ally descends  to  the  level  of  casuistry.  Celsus  brings 
forward  objections  which  he  either  ignores  or — con- 
sidering that  he  is  dealing  with  one  who  does  not 
share  the  Christian  presuppositions — fails  fairly  to 
meet.  Yet,  when  all  is  said,  the  fact  remains  that 
many  of  the  best  things  Origen  ever  wrote  are  con- 
tained in  this  apologetic  work.  It  is,  moreover, 
pervaded  by  a  fine  Christian  spirit.  In  spite  of  the 
provokingly  biting  sarcasm  of  his  opponent,  he  never 
indulges  in  anything  like  abusive  language ;  "  this  low 
jester  Celsus"  (iii.  22)  is  perhaps  tke  worst  epithet  he 
applies  to  him.  With  the  most  persevering  patience 
he  traverses  nearly  every  specific  objection  raised  by 
that  writer  against  Christianity,  and  he  candidly 
admits  that  on  some  points  he  is  correct  in  his  view 
(iii.  16).  Every  justice  is  done  to  the  culture  of  the 
ancients.  In  the  entire  work  there  is  nothing  out  of 
keeping  with  the  ideal  of  Christian  meekness  so 
impressively  drawn  in  its  opening  sentence :  "  When 
false  witnesses  testified  against  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,  He  remained  silent ;  and  when  unfounded 
charges  were  brought  against  Him,  He  returned  no 
answer,  believing  that  His  whole  life  and  conduct 
among  the  Jews  were  a  better  refutation  than  any 
answer  to  the  false  testimony,  or  than  any  formal 
defence  against  the  accusations." 

The  nature  of  Celsus's  attack  necessarily  determined 
the  general  scope  of  Origen's  reply.  It  w^as  not  within 
his  purview  to  combat  the  essential  errors  of  paganism  ; 
his  task  was  the  narrower  one  of  answering  the  specific 
objections  urged  against  Christianity.  Meanly  enough, 
Celsus  had  prefaced  these  with  the  declaration  that  its 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  113 

votaries  were  di.sl(\yal  i-cbels  who  adliered  to  an  illegal 
secret  system,  well  knowing  that  to  bring  such  a 
charge  was  a  virtual  sentence  of  death.  Origen  replies 
tliat,  so  far  from  being  unpatriotic,  Christians  are  pre- 
eminently benefactors  of  their  countr3^  If  they  do 
not  fight  for  kings  with  the  sword,  they  render  them 
still  more  effective  help  by  their  prayers ;  if  they 
decline  public  offices,  it  is  that  they  may  perform  a 
diviner  service  in  the  Church  of  God  (viii.  73-75). 
Their  "  secret  associations "  amount  to  nothing  more 
than  a  league  against  the  tyranny  of  the  devil  (i.  1) ; 
their  doctrine  is  better  known  to  the  world  than  the 
tenets  of  philosophers  (i.  7).  What  likelihood  is  there 
of  those  rebelling  against  the  State  whose  Master  for- 
bids slaughter,  violence,  and  revenge  (iii.  7,  8),  and 
whose  religious  principles  re([uire  a  willing  subjection 
to  civil  rulers  ?  Philosophers  are  not  censured  for 
abandoning  their  country's  customs ;  why  then  should 
Christians  be  ?  A  distinction  must  be  made  between 
the  written  law  of  cities  and  the  law  of  nature,  i.e.  the 
law  of  God ;  and  where  these  clash.  Christians  are  only 
reasonable  in  seeking  to  regulate  their  lives  by  the 
prescriptions  of  the  latter,  which  is  "  king  of  all  things" 
(v.  35-40). 

As  a  philosopher,  Celsus  is  biassed  against  Chris- 
tianity on  several  grounds.  For  one  thing,  he  views  it 
as  fit  only  for  unlettered  rustics.  The  style  of  the 
sacred  writings  he  despises  as  rude  and  simple,  and 
their  contents,  where  true,  as  a  coarse  recliauffe  of 
what  has  been  more  elegantly  expressed  before.  He 
cites  the  Christian  precept,  "  Whosoever  shall  smite 
thee  on  thy  right  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also," 
and    represents   it   as   a   vulgar   reproduction   of    the 


114     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

Platonic  version  of  the  same  trutli :  "  We  must  never 
do  injury  to  any ;  we  must  not  even,  as  most  people 
think,  take  revenge  for  evil  done  "  (vii.  58).  To  this 
Origen  wisely  replies  that  the  style  of  address  adopted 
in  Scripture  and  by  our  Lord  Himself  was  one  suited 
to  a  gospel  intended  for  the  multitude,  and  that  while 
comparatively  few  have  profited  by  the  beautiful  and 
polished  style  of  Plato,  books  written  in  simpler  style 
have  been  of  service  to  many.  This  Origen  says  with- 
out disparaging  Plato,  "  for  the  great  world  of  men  has 
usefully  produced  him  also." 

Another  thing  laid  by  Celsus  to  the  charge  of 
Christianity  is  that  it  exalts  faith  at  the  expense  of 
reason,  and  so  puts  a  premium  upon  foolishness.  It 
was  the  habit  of  Christians,  he  says,  to  represent  that 
there  was  no  need  for  investigation,  and  to  keep  re- 
peating, "  Your  faith  will  save  you."  Origen  answers 
that  this  is  not  a  true  statement  of  the  case ;  that  in 
the  Christian  system  there  is  ample  scope  for  investiga- 
tion; and  that  in  laying  stress  upon  faith  Christians 
are  only  giving  effect  to  a  principle  underlying  all 
things  human.  The  sailor  exercises  faith  when  he 
puts  out  to  sea ;  so  does  the  farmer  when  he  casts  seed 
into  the  ground.  Even  into  the  choice  of  a  particular 
school  of  pliilosophy  faith  must  enter ;  and  if  we  must 
repose  faith  in  the  founder  of  such  a  school,  is  it  not  more 
reasonable  to  trust  in  God  Himself,  and  in  Him  whose 
words  exert  such  a  marvellous  power  in  the  lives  of 
the  believing  ?  However  desirable  it  might  be  for  all  to 
study  philosophy,  only  a  few  have  leisure  and  talent  for 
this.  Is  it  not  therefore  well  that  so  many  should  have 
been  redeemed  from  the  practice  of  wickedness  through 
r.iilh  alone,  and  apart  from  pliilosopliical  reasons? 


THE   WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  115 

The  rooted  antipathy  of  Celsus  to  Christianity  was 
further  due  to  its  attitude  towards  the  sinful  and  the 
worthless.  In  this  aspect  it  ran  counter  to  his  philo- 
sophical beliefs,  "  for  to  change  nature  thoroughly  is 
exceedingly  difficult,"  as  well  as  to  his  sense  of  pro- 
priety, for  he  fully  endorsed  the  Pharisaic  complaint, 
"This  man  receiveth  sinners."  Origen  replies  that 
there  is  no  absolute  preference  shown  for  the  sinner  as 
such ;  it  is  only  where  the  element  of  penitence  comes 
in  that  he  is  ranked  higher  than  one  who  is  reckoned 
a  lesser  sinner,  but  who  is  devoid  of  tlie  conscious- 
ness of  sin,  and  proud  of  his  good  qualities.  Moreover, 
although  the  gates  of  the  Church  are  open  to  the  most 
sinful,  it  is  from  the  ranks  of  the  virtuous  that  her 
adherents  are  mostly  drawai  (iii.  65). 

Celsus  does  not  content  himself  with  giving  ex- 
pression to  such  prejudices  against  Christianity;  he 
deliberately  seeks  to  undermine  the  foundation  on 
wdiich  it  rests.  To  begin  with,  he  denies  the  need  for 
a  revelation.  Origen  shows  that,  apart  from  such  a 
source,  no  ade(|uate  knowledge  of  God  can  be  acquired 
by  men,  and  (quotes  from  Plato's  Timcaiis  to  prove 
that  this  is  acknowledged  by  philosophers  themselves. 
Celsus  goes  on  to  affirm  that,  even  assuming  a  revela- 
tion to  be  necessary,  the  Scriptures  do  not  possess  that 
superiority,  that  originality,  or  that  worthy  conception 
of  Deity  which  would  alone  entitle  them  to  such  a 
character.  While  granting  that  philosophy  and  Chris- 
tianity have  some  truths  in  common,  Origen  asserts 
that  on  a  comparison  the  superiority  of  the  latter  is 
disclosed ;  that  in  no  case  has  a  Christian  dogma  been 
bon-owed  from  Greek  philosophy ;  and  that  it  is  absurd 
to  suppose  that  uneducated  men  like  Peter  and  John 


ii6     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

should  liave  based  their  teaching  about  God  on  a  mis- 
representation of  passages  in  the  epistles  of  Plato. 
The  originality  of  the  Christian  doctrines  is  attested 
by  their  moral  force.  Philosophers  will  gravely  dis- 
course about  the  soul,  and  then  straightway  sacrifice  a 
cock  to  Esculapius;  whereas  the  power  of  those  Scrip- 
tures which  Celsus  calls  "  vulgar  "  is  such  as  to  convert 
multitudes  from  vice  to  virtue,  and  inspire  cowards 
with  a  moral  courage  tliat  despises  death  (iii.  6).  The 
scriptural  conception  of  God  is  not,  as  Celsus  main- 
tains, debasing  and  purely  material ;  its  anthropomor- 
phisms are  simply  an  adaptation  to  our  weak  capacitj^ 
and  are  to  be  understood  figuratively.  Origen  agrees 
so  far  with  Celsus  that  man's  knowledge  of  God  is 
limited,  but  affirms  that  we  know  some  of  His 
attributes.  Although  being  incorporeal  He  cannot  be 
seen,  the  vision  of  Him  is  yet  possible  to  a  pure  heart. 
It  is  the  inner  man  that  is  created  after  the  image  of 
God. 

Celsus's  criticism  of  the  Scriptures  is  positive,  how- 
ever, as  well  as  negative.  The  Mosaic  cosmogony  and 
Old  Testament  records  in  general  he  views  as  replete 
with  silly  absurdities,  and  the  distinctive  rites  of 
Judaism  as  borrowed  from  other  nations.  He  denies 
that  a  race  like  the  Jews  could  have  been  "  belo\  ed  of 
God,"  and  represents  Christianity  as  at  once  based 
upon  and  in  sharp  conflict  with  Judaism.  Origen 
defends  the  inspiration  of  the  Mosaic  writings,  and 
points  to  the  monotheism  as  well  as  to  the  lofty  stand- 
ard of  morality  that  obtained  among  the  Jews  in 
proof  of  their  divine  calling.  They  were  forsaken  by 
God  only  when  they  sinned,  and  were  never  utterly 
abandoned  until  they  slew  Jesus.     Circumcision  and 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  117 

abstinence  from  swine's  ilesli  may  have  been  practised 
by  others  than  Jews,  but  with  a  different  motive.  The 
divine  authority  of  Scripture  is  attested  by  the  fulfil- 
ment of  prophecy.  Christians  accept  the  inspiration 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  but  differ  from  the  Jews  as 
to  their  interpretation.  It  is  not  with  the  letter, 
but  the  spiritual  truth  of  Judaism  that  the  Christian 
has  to  do ;  for  this  is  not  a  national,  but  a  cosmopolitan 
religion.  "  We  have  to  say,  moreover,  that  the  gospel 
has  a  demonstration  of  its  own,  more  divine  than  any 
established  by  Grecian  dialectics.  And  this  diviner 
method  is  called  by  the  apostle  the  'demonstration  of 
the  Spirit  and  of  power':  of  'the  Spirit'  on  account 
of  the  prophecies,  wliich  are  sufficient  to  produce  faith 
in  any  one  who  reads  them,  especially  in  those  things 
wliich  relate  to  Christ ;  and  of  '  power,'  because  of  the 
signs  and  wonders  which  we  must  believe  to  have  been 
performed,  both  on  many  other  grounds  and  on  this, 
that  traces  of  them  are  still  preserved  among  those 
who  regulate  their  lives  by  the  precepts  of  the  gospel " 
(i.  2). 

But  it  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  that  con- 
stituted the  main  point  in  the  controversy  between 
Celsus  and  Origen.  In  attacking  this  Celsus  had  tried 
to  storm  the  citadel  of  the  Christian  faith.  With  great 
vigour  Origen  repels  the  assault,  and  shows  that  Celsus 
proceeds  upon  a  misapprehension  as  to  the  nature  of 
God,  the  value  of  man,  and  the  moral  results  of  Chris- 
tianity. No  Christian,  he  says,  maintains  tlie  descent 
of  God  into  humanity  in  the  sense  that  He  tliereby 
vacated  His  throne  in  heaven.  It  was  man's  work, 
not  God's,  that  needed  repair.  Tlie  advent  of  Christ 
was  not  the  outcome  of   a   sudden  impulse,  but  the 


ii8     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

final  sta<j^c  in  a  long  development.  That  He  who  was 
previously  in  the  form  oi'  God  should  lay  aside  His 
glory  so  as  to  be  accessible  to  men  involves  no  such 
change  as  that  alleged  by  Celsus ; — not  from  good  to 
evil,  for  He  did  no  sin ;  nor  from  honour  to  shame,  for 
He  knew  no  sin ;  nor  from  happiness  to  misery,  for 
He  humbled  Himself,  and  was  none  the  less  blessed. 
Who  would  suggest  such  a  process  of  degeneration  in 
connection  with  the  work  of  a  physician,  whose  benev- 
olence leads  him  to  view  and  handle  repulsive  objects 
in  order  that  suiierers  may  be  cui'ed  ? 

If  Celsus  thought  that  the  Incarnation  degraded 
God,  he  also  considered  that  it  unduly  exalted  man. 
In  his  pantheistic  materialism  he  virtually  puts  man 
on  a  level  with  the  brute  creation.  Origen,  on  the 
other  hand,  affirms  man's  position  in  creation  to  be 
uni(j[ue.  To  liken  to  a  worm  of  the  earth  him  who 
was  made  in  the  image  of  God  is  to  calumniate  human 
nature.  While  Celsus  cannot  conceive  of  God  as 
coming  into  contact  with  matter,  Origen  knows  no 
pollution  save  that  of  moral  evil.  The  consecrated 
body  is  the  temple  of  God.  It  is  for  man  chiefly, 
though  not  exclusively,  that  all  things  have  been 
framed  by  the  Creator.  The  dogs  eat  of  the  crumbs 
which  fall  from  the  master's  table.  The  comparison 
^\•hich  Celsus  makes  between  the  actions  of  men  and 
those  of  ants  and  bees  afFoi-ds  no  proof  of  their  equality. 
God  is  not  angry  with  apes  or  flics,  but  He  punishes 
men  who  transm-ess  His  law.  While  according  to 
Celsus  there  is  in  this  perfect  universe  no  moral  dis- 
order, no  sin,  and  therefore  no  need  of  redemption, 
Oi'igen  maintains  that  in  the  exercise  of  his  freedom 
the  rational  creature  has  brought  moral  confusion  into 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  119 

the  cosmos,  and  that  in  order  to  repair  this  disaster 
God  lias  revealed  Himself  through  conscience,  prophecy, 
and  the  Incarnation. 

Celsus  was  further  led  by  his  doctrine  of  evil  to 
maintain  that  the  end  of  tlie  Incarnation  is  unattain- 
able. Redemption  is  impossible ;  moral  evil  cannot  be 
cured ;  everytliing  revolves  in  a  circuit ;  history  liter- 
ally repeats  itself.  "  If  this  be  true,"  Origen  replies, 
"  our  free  will  is  annihilated  ;  Christians  will  be  re- 
deemed and  unredeemed  by  turns,  and  Celsus  will 
periodically  write  over  again  this  treatise  of  his ! " 
Necessitarianism  like  this  is,  of  course,  fatal  to  Chris- 
tianity, which  makes  its  appeal  to  the  moral  nature  of 
man  as  a  free  agent.  There  is  a  flavour  of  piety  about 
the  saying  of  Celsus,  that  apparent  evil  may  promote 
the  good  of  the  whole ;  but  evil  is  none  the  less  evil 
because  it  is  overruled  for  good.  The  position  taken 
up  by  Celsus  amounts  to  the  negation  of  moral  evil. 
"  This  is  the  opiate  administered  by  pantheism  in  all 
ages  to  soothe  conscience,  deaden  human  sensibilities, 
and  enable  men  to  contemplate  with  philosophic  in- 
difference the  moral  condition  of  the  world,  as  at  once 
irremediable  and  not  needing  remedy."  ^  While  Origen 
recognises  the  value  of  the  evidence  of  prophecy  and 
miracle,  he  bases  his  apology  chiefly  on  moral  grounds. 
To  liim  tlie  proof  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  is  the 
power  which  it  exerts  over  the  hearts  and  lives  of 
men.  In  answer  to  the  contention  of  Celsus  that 
Christians  were  the  adherents  of  One  who  had  failed, 
Origen  triumpliantly  appeals  to  the  circumstance  that 
Christian  Churches  were  everywhere  rising  up  like 
stars  in  the  surrounding  darkness,  and  that  although 
^  Bruce,  A^iolofjelics,  \\-  14. 


120     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

it  was  most  inlluciitially  opposed,  the  progress  of  tlic 
gospel  was  in  inverse  ratio  to  tlie  liostility  directed 
against  it.  All  the  assertions  an<l  arguments  of  its 
opponents  were  invalidated  by  the  incontrovertible 
lojric  of  visible  fact. 


^to' 


iii.  Exegdical  Writings  of  Origen 

In  this  department  Origcn's  labours  are  prodigious, 
and  range  over  nearly  tlic  entire  field  of  Scripture. 
They  comprise  (1)  Scholia,  brief  notes,  mostly  gram- 
matical, and  not  necessarily  always  original,  upon 
obscure  and  diflicult  passages  ;  (2)  Commentaries, 
which,  in  spite  of  the  allegoric  and  dogmatic  elements 
with  which  they  are  cumbered,  in  many  respects  still 
serve  as  models  for  commentators;  (3)  Homilies,  or 
expository  lectuivs  which  aimed  at  edification.  Of 
these  works  not  mucli  has  been  preserved  in  the  Greek 
original,  but  considerable  portions  are  extant  in  Latin 
translations  by  Rufinus  and  Jerome. 

Properly  speaking,  Origen  was  the  first  exegete. 
Everything  done  in  this  direction  previously  {e.g.  by 
Theophilus  of  Antioch,  Melito  of  Sardis,  and  even 
Pantsenus  and  Clement)  had  been  merely  preparatory 
to  a  scientific  interpretation  of  Scripture  which  views 
each  separate  passage  in  relation  to  tlie  whole.  While, 
of  course,  no  fair  comparison  can  be  made  between  him 
and  modern  conmientators,  it  is  no  exaggeration  to  say 
that  the  best  of  tliem  are  debtors  to  Origen.  One  of 
his  great  merits  is  tliat  he  never  shirks  a  difiiculty ; 
indeed,  from  pure  love  of  discussion  he  frequently 
suggests  doubts  to  the  reader.  Nothing  could  exceed 
liis   passioji    for   verbal   and  grammatical   accuracy,  or 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  121 

his  linguistic  and  critical  insight,  while  his  knowledge 
of  the  ancient  theology  is  uni([ue.  And  despite  recent 
attempts  to  belittle  his  scientific  attainments/  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that,  relatively  to  his  own  age,  these 
were  of  the  highest  order.  If  in  handling  the  Septua- 
gint  he  was  hampered  by  his  imperfect  acquaintance 
with  Hebrew,  he  was  under  no  such  disability  with 
reference  to  the  New  Testament.  The  Greek  grammar 
and  language  he  knew  as  thoroughly  as  any  Greek 
scholar  of  his  time.  His  commentaries,  however,  are 
not  without  faults.  They  are  marred  by  their  excessive 
length  and  discursiveness  ;  they  often  lack  clearness ; 
they  are  overloaded  with  irrelevancies  and  wearisome 
repetitions.  His  view  of  inspiration  compelled  him 
also  to  adopt  the  allegorical  method,  according  to 
which  the  sacred  books  are  treated  ostensibly  as  an 
encyclopa3dia  of  philosophical  and  dogmatic  wisdom, 
but  in  reality  as  a  peg  on  which  to  hang  the  com- 
mentator's own  ideas.  The  plan  he  follows  is  that 
of  giving  consecutively  verse  by  verse  the  literal, 
moral,  and  spiritual  sense.  By  means  of  his  allegoric 
spiritualism  he  can  thus  gain  from  any  word  an 
outlook    into  the   universal.-^      "  The  text   is   but   the 

^  See  Denis,  Introduction,  p.  12  fl". 

-  The  strange  blending  of  granunatical  ami  specnlativc  exposition  so 
distinctive  of  Origen  is  well  illustrated  in  what  he  gets  out  of  the 
Inscriptions  of  the  Psalms.  The  word  usually  rendered  "For  the 
chief  musician"  he  renders  "To  the  end."  This  leads  to  an  enumera- 
tion of  the  notions  of  different  philosophers  upon  the  subject  of  the 
end,  and  is  followed  by  a  discussion  about  the  essence  and  name  of 
God.  "Upon  Gittith  "  he  interprets  to  mean  "concerning  the  wine- 
press," and  finds  in  this  the  idea  of  the  Church,  where  the  devotion 
olfered  to  God  represents  the  coml)in('d  outpouring  of  many  hearts,  just 
as  in  the  wine-press  the  contents  of  many  grape-dusters  go  to  form  the 
wine. 


122     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

tlircsliing-floor  on  wliicli  lie  pours  out  all  llic  harvest 
of  his  knowledge,  his  meditations,  his  hopes."  ^ 

Origcn's  principal  New  Testament  commentaries  are 
those  on  St.  Matthew,  St.  John,  and  llomans.  Chrono- 
logically, the  commentary  on  St.  John  was  his  first 
great  excgetieal  work.  It  was  composed  of  more  than 
thirty-two  books,  of  which,  apart  from  fragments,  we 
possess  only  nine.  Like  our  modern  commentaries,  it 
is  prefaced  by  a  general  Introduction,  dealing  with  the 
peculiar  characteristics  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  and 
according  to  it  the  highest  place  on  account  of  the 
stress  it  lays  on  the  divinity  of  our  Lord.  The  ex- 
position itself  is  marked  by  that  breadth  of  treatment 
which  is  a  feature  of  all  Origen's  writings.  The  style 
is  on  the  whole  clear,  but  sometimes  involved  and 
usually  diffuse.  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word  " — 
this  forms  the  subject-matter  of  the  whole  of  the  first 
book.  At  the  outset  he  gi\-es  all  possible  senses  of 
this  statement,  with  special  consideration  of  the  mean- 
ings put  upon  it  by  heretics.  This  is  followed  by  a 
discussion  of  "  the  Word,"  and  this  again  by  a  disquisi- 
ti(jn  upon  the  doctrine  of  creation  out  of  nothing.  The 
second  book  continues  the  exposition  only  as  far  as 
chap.  i.  7. 

The  commentary  on  Romans  was  written  after  his 
sixtieth  year.  It  was  translated,  edited,  and  abbre- 
viated by  Rufinus,  and  it  is  not  always  possible  to 
distinguish  between  what  is  his  and  what  is  Origen's 
own.  But  from  Greek  fragments  still  extant,  and  from 
other  translations,  as  well  as  from  what  we  otherwise 
know  of  Origen's  views,  it  is  clear  that  Rufinus  allowed 
himself  a  good  deal  of  latitude  in  excising  whole  pas- 

^  Bigg,  Ohrislian  PliUonistx,  \\.  101  f. 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  123 

sajfcs  aii<l  in  correcting:  wliat  bo  deemed  heterodox.  This 
is  very  noticeable  as  regards,  for  example,  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity. 

A  still  later  date  must  be  assigned  to  the  commentary 
on  St.  Matthew,  the  nine  opening  books  of  which 
have  almost  entirely  perished.  The  remainder  of  the 
work  still  exists  in  a  somewhat  uncouth,  but  apparently 
faitliful,  Latin  translation.  As  might  have  been  ex- 
pected, these  later  products  of  Origen's  pen  exhibit  a 
soberness  of  spirit,  a  maturity  of  judgment,  and  a 
freedom  from  exaggeration  in  strong  contrast  to  the 
vehement  impetuosity  of  his  earlier  daj'^s.  In  them 
he  expresses  himself  with  the  calmness  of  one  who 
has  had  experience  of  human  life  and  the  feelings 
incidental  to  it.  Nor  does  he  hesitate  in  his  com- 
mentary on  Matthew  to  retract  the  view  of  chap. 
xix.  12  wliich  led  to  his  own  youtliful  indiscretion. 
But  with  all  this  there  is  no  deviation  from  the  essen- 
tial principles  of  biblical  interpretation  and  exegesis 
held  and  practised  by  him  all  his  life  through,  and 
certainly  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  with  Ernesti 
that  allegory  was  merely  a  weakness  of  his  old  age. 

Speaking  with  tongues  was  distinctly  a  gift  of  a 
transient  kind  (1  Cor,  xiii.  8).  In  Origen's  time  a 
growingly  rigorous  Church  discipline  had  virtually 
banished  the  practice  from  Christian  gatherings ;  only 
among  the  Montanists  did  it  to  some  extent  linger  on. 
A  substitute  for  it  was  found  in  the  Discourse  or 
Homily.  This  was  the  name  given  to  the  popular 
expository  address  which  was  now  regularly  delivered 
in  the  Churches.  Divine  service  was  conducted  twice 
daily,  but  except  on  Sundays  and  feast-days  was  only 
very  sparsely  attended.    The  audiences  were  not  always 


124     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

devout,  and  it  was  particularly  difficult  to  secure  .silence 
on  the  part  of  garrulous  and  gossiping  women.  The 
Scriptures  were  read  consecutively,  and  the  preacher 
expounded  a  portion  of  what  was  read,  either  choosing 
his  text  himself  or  having  it  given  to  him  by  the  pre- 
siding bishop  or  by  the  presbyters.  All  were  welcomed 
at  tlie  daily  services,  but  the  unbaptized  were  not 
admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  In  respect  of  intelli- 
gence and  moral  fibre  the  audiences  were  of  a  decidedly 
mixed  character.  Some  took  a  very  materialistic  view 
of  gospel  promises ;  some  conceived  God  as  ruling  with 
despotic  cruelty;  others  were  lax  enough  to  fre(juent 
the  racecourse  as  well  as  the  church. 

To  Origon  belongs  the  distinction  of  being  the  first 
great  preacher.  Li  his  Homilies  ho  aims  chiefly  at  the 
edification  of  his  hearers,  and  concerns  himself  more 
witli  allegorical  interpretation  than  with  the  literal 
sense  of  the  passages  expounded.  There  is,  however, 
little  of  the  sentimental  or  pietistic  vein  about  his 
discourses.  The  products  of  a  robust  mind,  they 
appeal  in  the  main  to  the  intellect  rather  than  to  the 
emotions,  and  are  based  on  the  principle,  "  Come  now, 
and  let  us  reason  together."  They  are  marked  by 
lofty  dignity,  transparent  sincerity,  deep  moral  earnest- 
ness, and  width  of  outlook.  Their  author's  cultivated 
scriptural  intelligence  is  reflected  in  the  numerous 
biblical  quotations  with  which  his  discourses  are  inter- 
spersed. The  hortatory  element  is  not  conspicuous, 
but  in  tlie  closing  sentences  his  hearers  are  usually 
urged  to  the  performance  of  some  Christian  duty. 
Fr('f|U('ntly  ^  he  concludes  with  a  summons  to  rise  and 
play.  Of  the  Iloiiiilli's  still  extant  th(.'  most  important 
'  E.fj.  ill  Luc.  SG,  39, 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  125 

arc  those  011  the  Pentateuch,  Jeremiali,  and  St.  Luke. 
A  large  proportion  of  the  whole  were  delivered  at 
Caisarea  after  Origen  was  sixty  years  of  age.  They 
were  taken  down  by  shortliand  writers,  and  owe  their 
inornate  and  diffuse  style  to  their  extemporaneous 
delivery.  They  have,  however,  a  charm  of  their  own. 
"  Origen  is  emphatically  '  a  man  of  God,'  strong  and 
subtle,  yet  infinitely  humble  and  gentle,  a  true  Ductor 
duhitantiuTn,  because  he  knew  there  was  much  that 
he  did  not  know,  and  yet  was  not  afraid."  ^ 

iv.  Origen's  Dogmatic  WorLs 

Of  Origen's  dogmatic  works  there  is  only  one  com- 
plete specimen  extant,  namely,  the  ITEPI  APXHN  {De 
Princpiis,  On  the  Fundamental  Doctrines).  It  is, 
however,  a  work  of  first-rate  importance,  being  indeed 
the  most  notable  production  of  the  ante-Nicene  age. 
For  the  most  part,  unfoi-tunately,  we  possess  it  only  in 
the  Latin  translation  of  Rufinus.  Believing  that 
Origen's  works  had  been  malevolently  corrupted  by 
heretics,  this  writer  undertook  the  translation  on  the 
express  understanding  that  he  should  follow  the  method 
adopted  by  Jerome  in  his  translation  of  the  Homilies, 
that,  namely,  of  excising  or  amending  heterodox  state- 
ments. His  motive  was,  he  says,  to  prevent  Origen 
from  being  slandered ;  and  so  far  as  he  may  have  been 
able  to  free  the  text  from  real  corruption  his  work  was 
no  doubt  praisewortliy ;  yet  on  many  accounts  it  is 
permissible  to  wish  that  his  editorial  supervision  had 
been  spared.  As  it  is,  one  can  never  be  certain  as  to 
what  is  Origen's  and  what  is  due  to  Rufinus,  except 
^  Bigg,  Christian  Platmiists,  p.  130. 


126     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

iudccd  where  the  original  Greek  lias  been  preserved.^ 
Happily,  however,  it  is  frequently  possible  to  ascertain 
the  real  views  of  Origcn  from  the  Philocalia, — a  selec- 
tion of  "  choice  thoughts "  from  his  works  jointly 
compiled  by  Basil  the  Great  and  Gregory  of  Nazianzen. 
There  are  also  preserved  in  Photius  and  in  the  defence 
of  Origen  by  Pamphilus  certain  fragments  which  are 
useful  for  purposes  of  comparison. 

Written  prior  to  A.D.  228,-  the  De  Prbicipiis  falls 
within  the  earlier  period  of  Origen's  literary  activity. 
It  reflects,  however,  with  substantial  accuracy  the 
views  of  his  later  years.  Intended  for  readers  familiar 
with  the  philosophical  teaching  of  the  times,  it  aims  at 
giving  objective  reality  to  the  metaphysical  abstractions 
in  which  men  busied  themselves,  and  is  notable  as  the 
first  attempt  at  a  scientific  Christian  dogmatic.  By 
such  a  presentation  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  the  one 
positive  religion  Origen  sought  to  supersede  the  gnosis 
which  meant  speculation  about  all  forms  of  religion ; 
and  although  frequently  the  fundamental  truths  them- 
selves are  overshadowed  by  the  general  philosophical 
speculations  of  the  age,  the  work  displays  throughout 
a  spirit  of  unswerving  loyalty  to  Scripture  and  to  the 
creed  of  the  Church.  The  former  supplies  the  material, 
the  latter  regulates  the  use  to  which  it  is  put  in  the 
buildino-  up  "  by  all  the  resources  of  the  intellect  and 
of  speculation  "  of  the  first  system  of  Christian  dogma. 
As  individual  opinions  are  freely  expressed  in  connec- 

^  This  applies  to  considerable  sections  of  IJooks  III.  and  IV. 

-  So  Harnack.  Sclinitzer,  aiiparently  upon  insuHlcicnt  grounds, 
would  date  it  as  earlj^  as  213  ;  while  Redepenning,  erring  jirohaMy  in 
the  ojiposite  direction,  thinks  it  nuist  have  been  composed  after  Origen's 
fiftieth  year  (235). 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  127 

(ion  witli  tlu'  elucidation  of  the  several  doctrines,  the 
book  is  really  a  philosophy  of  Christianity — though 
not,  as  some  have  thought,  a  Christian  philosophy  of 
the  oriirin  of  beinu" ' — and  in  its  measure  a  solution  of 
a  problem  unattempted  by  Clement,  Judged  by 
modern  standards,  it  may  lie  open  to  criticism  on  the 
ground  of  occasional  vagueness,  strained  interpretations, 
digressions,  repetitions,  etc.  It  maj'  also  appear  as  if 
the  peculiar  "  trutlis  of  salvation  "  are  kept  too  much 
in  the  background  owing  to  Christian  doctrine  being 
treated  as  a  matter  of  knowledge.  To  the  former 
criticism  it  is  sufficient  to  reply  that  Origen's  was  the 
first  attempt  "  to  form  a  connected  series  and  body  of 
truths " ;  to  the  second,  it  may  be  answered  that  for 
Origen  Christianity  was  essentially  a  doctrine  of  salva- 
tion. In  his  view,  however,  men  need  not  only  to  be 
saved  from  sin,  but  also,  and  very  specially,  from  error 
in  science  and  religion.  This  explains  why  to  him  and 
to  his  age  doctrine  formed  the  essential  content  of 
Christianity. 

Origen's  starting-point  is  the  Christian  tradition. 
The  facts  and  customs  thus  transmitted  are  to  be 
implicitly  accepted  as  the  basis  of  all  further  investiga- 
tion. But  the  apostles  did  not  clear  up  everything. 
Frequently  they  contented  themselves  with  a  brief 
statement  of  doctrines,  leaving  the  scientific  proof  of 
them  to  be  established  by  the  exercise  of  Christian 
talent.  In  some  instances  they  left  the  disciple  to 
rely  upon  science  even  for  the  precise  definition  of 
dogmas,  as  well  as  for  the  elucidation  of  their  mutual 
relations  and  the  deduchig  of  the  consequences.     The 

^  This  has  heon  conchisively  shown  by  Schnitzer  (p.  22  ff.)  in  his 
excellent  remarks  upon  the  meaning  of  the  title  Jlepl  dp^wc 


128     ORIGEN   AND   GREEK  THEOLOGY 

fiiitli  has  been  once  for  all  delivered  to  the  saints,  but 
it  is  the  t'uuction  of  the  enlightened  Christian  reason 
to  forniiilate  and  develop  it,  and  to  apply  it  to  the 
practical  wants  of  men.  In  short,  tliere  is  perfect 
liberty  of  thought  and  opinion  on  every  point  not 
included  in  tlie  apostolic  tradition  or  rule  of  faith,  of 
whicli,  according  to  Origen,  tliis  is  the  sum — (1)  there 
is  one  God  who  created  all  things  out  of  nothing,  who 
is  just  and  good,  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  the  God  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments;  (2) 
Jesus  Christ  was  begotten  of  the  Father  before  all 
creatures,  was  the  servant  of  the  Father  in  the  work 
of  creation,  and  became  man  without  ceasing  to  be 
God ;  He  was  born  of  a  virgin  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit ; 
He  did  truly  suffer,  rise  again,  and  ascend  into  heaven ; 

(3)  the  Holy  Spirit  is  associated  in  lionuur  and  dignity 
with  tlie  Father  and  the  Son,  and  inspired  all  the 
saints  both  under  the  old  and  under  the  new  economy ; 

(4)  tliere  will  be  a  resurrection  of  the  dead,  when  the 
body  which  is  sown  in  corruption  will  rise  in  incorrup- 
tion,  and  hereafter  the  soul  will  inherit  eternal  life  or 
endure  eternal  punishment  according  to  its  deeds ;  (5) 
ever}'  rational  soul  is  a  free  agent,  lured  to  sin  by  evil 
spirits,  and  helped  by  good  angels  to  salvation,  yet  not 
forced  to  act  rightly  or  wrongly;  (6)  tlie  Scriptures 
were  wiittcn  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  have  not  onlj' 
an  ob\ious  meaning,  but  also  a  hidden  sense  perceived 
by  those  only  on  wliom  is  conferred  the  grace  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  tlic  word  of  wisdom  and  knowledge.^ 

Althcnigli  tlie  work  is  not  strictly  metliodical,  it  is 
broadly  accurate  to  say  that  the  first  book  treats  of 
God  and   the   spirits ;  the   second,  of   the  world   and 
^  Preface,  p.  4  IT. 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  129 

man ;  and  the  third,  of  sin  and  redemption.  In  each 
of  these  tln-ee  books  tlie  entire  Christian  conception  of 
the  world  is  set  forth  from  a  different  standpoint.  Tlie 
fourth  book  deals  with  Holy  Scripture. 

In  the  tirst  book  (,)rio-en  discusses  the  nature  of  God 
and  the  special  relations  of  the  Three  Persons  of  the 
Godhead  to  men,  who  "  derive  their  existence  from 
God  the  Fatlier,  their  rational  nature  from  the  Word, 
and  their  holiness  from  the  Holy  Spirit."  The  true 
goal  of  humanity  is  union  with  God ;  but  this  can  be 
reached  only  by  a  gi'adual  process  of  enlightenment  and 
purification.  "  By  the  renewal  of  the  ceaseless  working 
of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  in  us,  in  its  various 
stages  of  progress,  shall  we  be  able  at  some  future  time 
perhaps,  although  with  difficulty,  to  behold  the  holy 
and  the  blessed  Mfe,  in  which  (as  it  is  only  after  many 
struggles  that  we  are  able  to  reach  it)  we  ought  so  to 
continue  that  no  satiety  of  that  blessedness  should 
ever  seize  us ;  but  the  more  we  perceive  its  blessedness, 
tlie  more  should  be  increased  and  intensified  within  us 
the  longing  for  the  same,  while  we  ever  more  eagerly 
and  freely  receive  and  hold  fast  the  Father,  the  Son, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit "  (i.  3.  8).  Negligence  may,  how- 
ever, induce  general  declension ;  man  may  sink  lower 
as  well  as  rise  higher.  And,  in  fact,  the  present  position 
occupied  by  each  rational  being  has  been  determined 
by  his  previous  use  of  his  opportunities  and  gifts ;  it  is 
not  due  to  some  having  been  created  essentially  holy, 
others  essentially  wicked,  and  others  still  capable  both 
of  virtue  and  vice.  It  is  because  of  merit,  and  not 
from  constitutional  necessity,  that  some  rank  higher 
than,  and  exercise  power  over  others;  just  as  it  is 
owing  to  their  own  actions  that  some  have  degenerated 


I30     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

into  iiialiguani  dcinons.  In  Orifi;en's  view  tlie  liiiman 
race  was  formed  of  those  occupying  an  intermediate 
position,  i.e.  of  those  removed  from  their  primal  state 
of  blessedness,  but  not  irrecoverably  so.  He  clunf^  to 
"  the  larger  hope,"  believing  that  wliilc  at  the  end  of 
the  world  God  will  bestow  on  each  what  he  deserves, 
the  divine  goodness  in  Christ  may  bring  all  His  creatures 
togetlier  into  a  great  unity.  "  Meanwhile,"  he  says, 
"  both  in  the  ages  which  are  seen  and  temporal,  and  in 
those  wliich  are  not  seen  and  eternal,  all  rational 
beings  wlio  have  fallen  are  dealt  with  according  to  the 
order,  the  character,  tlie  measure  of  their  deserts. 
Some  in  the  first,  others  in  the  second,  some,  again, 
even  in  the  last  times,  throuii^li  "■reatcr  and  lieavier 
sufferings,  borne  through  many  ages,  reformed  by 
sharper  discipline,  and  restored  at  first  by  the  insti'uc- 
tion  of  the  angels,  and  subsequently  by  tlie  powers  of 
a  higher  grade,  and  tlms  advancing  stage  by  stage  to 
a  better  condition,  reach  tliat  which  is  invisible  and 
eternal."  But  though  the  rational  soul  may  thus  pass 
from  one  order  to  another,  it  can  never  sink  into  the 
condition  of  irrational  animals  (i.  8.  4). 

Under  the  head  of  incorporeal  and  corporeal  beings 
Origen  raises  a  curious  and,  as  he  says,  "  bold  "  question 
as  to  the  position  of  the  heavenly  bodies — the  sun, 
moon,  and  stars.  On  what  he  regards  as  adetjuate 
scriptural  grounds,  he  maintains  that  they  are  living 
and  rational  beings ;  that  their  spirit  was  implanted  in 
them  from  without,  and  did  not  come  into  existence 
along  with  their  bodies;  and  tluit  at  tlie  end  of  the 
world  they  shall  be  released  from  their  bodies,  and 
from  the  bondage  of  giving  light  to  the  human 
race,   and    si i all     lonii    part    of   the    kingdom    which 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  131 

Christ  sluill  deliver  up  to  God   the    Father   that   lie 
may  be  all  in  all. 

The  second  book  is  mainly  devoted  to  a  consideration 
of  the  present  condition  of  the  world  and  man, — the 
rencwino-  influence  of  the  incarnation  of  Christ,  and 
the  doctrine  of  the  last  things.  According  to  Origen, 
the  great  diversity  of  condition  among  rational  beings 
is  due  to  the  varying  degrees  of  their  declension  from 
goodness.  But  in  his  ineffable  wisdom  and  power  God 
"grasps  and  holds  together  all  the  diversity  of  the 
world,"  and  adapts  the  vast  medley  of  motives  and 
movements  to  one  harmonious  whole.  Bodily  nature 
he  regards  as  the  result  of  the  infusion  of  certain 
qualities  into  created  matter,  and  as  destined  to  dis- 
solution when  all  luive  been  subjected  to  Christ. 
Another  fall  of  rational  creatures,  however,  would 
necessitate  its  coming  again  into  existence,  though  the 
new  world  thus  called  into  being  would  not  be  a 
duplicate  of  the  old.^  After  showing  that  there  is  no 
deiDiurge,  but  that  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
identical  with  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
unites  in  Himself  the  attributes  of  justice  and  goodness, 
our  author  proceeds  to  deal  with  the  incarnation  of 
Christ.  On  this  important  subject  he  advances  beyond 
the  position  of  Clement,  who  had  spoken  of  the  union 
of  the  Logos  with  a  human  body  but  not  with  a  human 
soul,  and  goes  on  to  develop  the  doctrine  of  the 
Saviour's  perfect  humanity  as  accepted  by  the  Church 

^  Origen  suggests  two  otlier  possible  views  with  reference  to  the  end 
of  all  things  and  the  sui)reme  blessedness, — the  one  that  the  bodily 
snbstance  will  be  changed  into  an  eternal  condition  corresponding  to 
the  merits  of  those  who  assume  it,  and  the  other  that  beyond  the 
planetary  spheres  there  is  a  good  land,  the  abode  of  the  meek,  and 
forming  part  of  that  "  heaven  "  which  is  the  home  of  the  perfected. 


132     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK   THEOLOGY 

ever  since.  He  tljen  levci'ts  to  the  subject  ol"  tlie  Holy 
Spirit  and  the  manifold  nature  of  His  working.  This 
is  followed  by  a  section  upon  the  soul,  which  he  derives 
from  the  understanding  (N^ous),  and  to  wliich  he  assigns 
an  intermediate  position  between  the  weak  flesh  and 
the  willing  spirit.  Of  rational  creatures  there  is  a 
definite  number,  sufficient  for  the  adorning  of  the 
world.  They  have  the  power  of  voluntary  action,  and 
may  develop  in  a  good  <]irection  or  a  bad ;  hence  the 
great  diversity  of  circumstances  among  them.  Diversity 
was  not  the  original  condition  of  the  creature,  but  is 
the  result  of  each  one's  lot  being  equitably  ordered 
according  to  the  deserts  of  his  previous  life.  The 
book  closes  with  a  discussion  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
resurrection,  future  punishment,  and  the  life  everlasting. 
The  third  book  treats  of  free  will,  the  conflict  with 
the  evil  powers  as  well  as  with  error  and  temptations 
of  purely  human  origin,  and  the  ultimate  realisation  by 
man  of  the  di^'ine  likeness  in  the  consummation  and 
restoration  of  all  things.  Nothing  is  more  distinctive 
of  Ori gen's  system  than  the  doctrine  of  free  will.  This 
constitutes  its  ethical  basis.  Just  because  man  is  at  all 
times  free  to  choose  between  good  and  evil,  it  is  on  the 
one  hand  made  possible  for  him  to  attain  to  perfection, 
and  on  the  other  impossible  for  him  to  divest  himself 
of  responsibility  for  failure.  While  the  decision  in 
each  case  rests  with  ourselves,  it  is  none  the  less  true 
that  all  that  happens  to  us  is  sent  of  God.  Origen  does 
not  strictly  regard  sin  as  inherited,  but  assumes  that 
guilt  has  been  contracted  by  the  individual  in  a  pre- 
mundane  existence,  and  that  his  present  material  and 
spiritual  endowment  has  been  determined  accordingly. 
In  spite  of  the  struggle  involved  in  the  existence  of 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  133 

hostile  powers  and  inner  temptations,  all  (including 
Satan  liiniscll")  may  advance  towards  the  dignity  of  the 
divine  likeness.  The  final  re-establishnicnt,  however, 
of  a  state  of  unity  in  which  God  shall  be  all  in  all  must 
Ije  slow  andgiadual,  "seeing  that  the  process  of  amend- 
ment and  correction  will  take  place  imperceptibly  in 
the  individual  instances  during  the  lapse  of  countless 
and  unmeasured  ages,  some  outstripping  others,  and 
tending  by  a  swifter  course  towards  perfection,  while 
others  again  follow  close  at  hand,  and  some  again  a 
long  way  behind  (iii.  6)." 

The  substance  of  the  fourth  book,  containing  Origen's 
views  on  Scripture  and  its  interpretation,  has  been 
already  dealt  with.  A  brief  resume  of  the  principal 
topics  discussed  in  it  brings  the  work  to  a  close. 

V.  Origen's  Letters  and  Treatises  on  Practical 
Religion 

Of  Origen's  letters  only  two  have  been  preserved, 
the  one  addressed  to  Julius  Africanus,  and  the  other 
to  Gregory  Tliaumaturgus.  The  circumstances  of 
their  composition,  and  the  nature  of  their  contents, 
have  been  already  referred  to.^  His  extant  works  on 
practical  religion  are  also  two  in  number,  and  treat  of 
Prayer  and  Martyrdom.  Between  them  they  cover 
practically  the  whole  subject  of  the  appropriation  of 
salvation. 

Origen's  treatise  on  Prayer  was  addressed  to  Ambro- 

sius  and  Tatiana,-  with  the  view  of  clearing  up  certain 

difficulties  felt  by  them  upon  this  subject.     The  exact 

year  of  its  composition  cannot  be  determined.     Pam- 

^  See  p.  58  f.  "  Perhaps  the  sister  of  Ambrosias. 


134     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

phihifs  i^roups  it  along  witli  the  works  on  Martyrdom 
and  tlie  Resurrectio a  as  being  written  more  directly 
from  the  heart  than  any  others  of  Origen's  numerous 
writings.  Besides  being  comparatively  free  from  his 
characteristic  faults,  it  contains  many  sjDiritually  sug- 
gestive, tender,  and  inspiring  thoughts.  Of  this  nature 
are,  for  example,  his  remarks  on  the  utility  of  so 
composing  the  mind  for  prayer  as  to  realise  the  im- 
mediate presence  of  God;  on  the  peculiar  love  and 
.sympathy  shown  by  the  holy  dead  for  tliose  who  are 
still  fighting  life's  battle;  on  the  saintly  life  as  one 
great  ceaseless  prayer ;  and  on  the  devotional  spirit  as 
implying  the  laying  aside  of  all  anxieties  and  grudges, 
and  the  lifting  up  to  God  of  the  soul  before  tlie  hands, 
of  the  mind  before  the  eyes. 

Origen  .starts  from  the  position  that  the  highest 
truth  is  incomprehensible  to  our  fallen  nature,  and 
can  only  be  grasped  by  us  through  the  rich  and  im- 
measurable grace  of  God,  ministered  to  us  through 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  There  is  nothing  good 
in  the  creature  save  what  has  been  bestowed  by  the 
Creator.  Hence  the  necessity  of  prayer.  But  of  our- 
selves "  we  know  not  what  we  should  pray  for  as  we 
ought " ;  we  need  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  to  direct  us. 
After  tracing  the  scriptural  meaning  and  usage  of 
the  word  praj-er,  Origen  proceeds  to  deal  with  two 
arguments  against  the  efficacy  of  prayer  which  had 
caused  perplexity  to  his  correspondents.  These  were 
that  prayer  is  vain  (1)  if  God  foresees  tlie  future  as  it 
will  actually  unfold  itself;  (2)  if  all  things  happen 
according  to  His  will,  and  His  decrees  are  fixed,  and 
nothing  of  what  He  desires  can  be  changed.  Origen's 
reply   is    that,  although   His  foreknowledge  is  of  the 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  135 

cliaracter  represented,  God  aiiswer.s  prayer  uevertheless  ; 
fur  Avliile  He  foresees,  He  does  not  control,  tlie  nature 
oi"  our  choice,  our  actions,  and  our  desires.  Divine 
prescience  neitlier  interferes  witli  tlie  exercise  of  our 
free  will,  nor  divests  us  of  responsibility  for  our  actions. 
By  way  of  enforcing  the  duty  of  prayer,  the  writer 
points  to  the  example  of  Christ  and  the  saints.  The 
Son  of  God  is  the  high  priest  of  our  oblations,  and  our 
advocate  with  the  Father;  He  prays  for  those  who 
pray.  So  do  the  angels  who  are  sent  to  minister  to  us, 
and  the  souls  of  the  saints  who  have  already  fallen 
asleep.  If  Jesus  prays,  nor  prays  in  vain,  but  through 
prayer  obtains  His  requests,  and  presumably  would  not 
obtain  them  without  prayer,  which  of  us  can  neglect  to 
pray  ?  He  who  always  prays  will  always  be  heard. 
In  the  Babylonian  den  the  lions'  mouths  were  closed 
l)y  the  pra3'er  of  Daniel ;  Jonah  was  heard  from  the 
whale's  belly.  These  are  emblems  of  spiritual  experi- 
ences, of  deliverances  from  more  hurtful  beasts,  and 
from  the  billows  of  keener  trial.  Besides  being  in 
itself  a  valuable  moral  tonic,  prayer  brings  down  the 
fertilising  rain  of  spiritual  blessing  which  has  been 
retarded  by  sin,  dissolves  the  poison  instilled  into  the 
pra^'cr-neglecting  soul  by  the  powers  of  evil,  and 
quenches  the  fires  of  temptation.  It  is  more  properly 
concerned  with  those  spiritual  and  heavenly  things  of 
which  things  earthly  are  but  the  shadow.  Pra3'er 
should  penetrate  the  whole  life,  yet  not  so  as  to  sink 
the  special  exercise  in  the  general  devotional  attitude 
of  the  soul.  Thrice  daily  at  least,  as  well  as  once 
during  the  night,  ought  one  to  pray.  Many  words,  or 
polished  sentences,  are  not  nccessar}-,  but  the  praj'er 
must  be  without  wrath  or  excitement.     Founding  upon 


136     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

1  Tim.  ii.  1,  Origen  distinguishes  four  varieties  of 
prayer,  and  illustrates  these  by  examples  from  Scrip- 
ture. His  conclusion  is  that  while  intercession  and 
thanksgiving  may  fitly  be  offered  to  men,  and  all  three 
lower  forms  of  petition  to  the  saints,  "  prayer  "  strictly 
so  called  must  be  addressed  to  God  only.  It  is  not 
proper  to  pray  to  the  Son  as  apart  from  the  Father, 
nor  to  the  Son  conjointly  with  the  Father;  our  prayers 
must  be  directed  to  God  alone,  the  supreme  Father  of 
all,  to  whom  the  Saviour  Himself  also  prayed.  But 
they  must  be  offered  through  the  only-begotten  Son 
as  the  high  priest  whom  the  Father  Himself  has 
appointed ;  and  without  Him  no  prayer  can  be  offered 
to  the  Father.  Origen  bases  his  view  on  the  Saviour's 
words,  "  Whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  the  Fatlier,  He  will 
give  it  you  in  My  name."  By  putting  the  question, 
"  Are  we  not  divided  if  we  pray  some  to  the  Father, 
some  to  the  Son  ? "  he  seems  to  indicate  that  at  the 
time  he  wrote  there  was  a  lack  of  uniformity  in  the 
practice  of  the  Church  upon  this  point,  and  that  he  was 
urging  a  return  to  earlier  usage.  Prayer  to  Christ  as 
God  is  nowhere  disallowed  by  him ;  on  the  contrary,  he 
justifies  it  by  a  reference  to  the  prayers  of  the  thief  on 
the  cross  and  of  the  martyr  Stephen.  And  in  several 
passages  of  his  writings  he  practises  it  himself.^ 

Was  Origen  consistent  in  this?  At  some  points, 
perhaps,  his  doctrine  requires  correction.  He  writes,  of 
of  course,  throughout  as  a  subordinationist  and  an 
advocate  of  the  view  that  Christ's  humanity  ceases 
with  His  exaltation.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  his 
position  upon  this  subject  was  not  dictated  by  any 
want  of  devotion  to  Jesus,  or  by  any  doubt  as  to  His 

^  Ilom.  in  Jcr.  4  ;  in  Kzcch.  12  ;  in  Luc.  15,  etc. 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  137 

divinity.  Katlicr  may  it  have  been  due  to  a  Tear  lest 
ill  the  mind  of  tlie  Church  the  Father  should  be  over- 
shadowed by  the  Son.  In  the  Western  Church  more 
particularly  there  was  a  tendency  to  confuse  the  First 
and  Second  Persons  of  the  Trinity  and  to  practise  the 
absolute  adoration  of  the  Son  in  a  manner  derogatory 
to  the  sovereio-nty  of  God.  It  was  a  further  and  later 
consequence  of  the  same  tendency  tliat  the  glory  of  the 
Son  was  hidden  behind  the  halo  that  surrounded  the 
Virgin  and  the  saints.  Certainly  Origcn  did  great 
service  in  emphasising  the  need  for  a  more  exact  con- 
ception of  what  prayer  is, — even  although  his  exposition 
of  1  Tim.  ii.  1,  and  his  use  of  other  parts  of  Scripture 
in  which  the  same  words  occur,  be  somewhat  arbitrary, — 
and  in  clearing  up  the  Son's  relation  to  the  Father  and 
to  the  fellowship  of  Christians.  His  view  practically 
amounts  to  this,  that  there  is  an  invocation  of  the  Son- 
which  is  permissible  and  proper,  but  which  is  different 
ill  degree  from  the  adoration  of  the  Father.  We  may 
directly  supplicate  the  Son  for  blessings  which  it  is  his 
prerogative  to  confer,  but  in  the  highest  act  of  worsliip 
the  soul  must  reach  forth  to  Him  whose  Being  is 
absolute  and  underived. 

A  considerable  section  of  Origeu's  work  on  Prayer 
(chaps.  18-30)  is  devoted  to  an  exposition  of  St. 
Matthew's  version  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  with  reference 
also  to  the  similar  praj^er  recorded  by  St.  Luke.  In 
the  closing  chapters  (31-33)  Origen  enters  into  par- 
ticulars regarding  the  proper  spirit  of  prayer,  the  fit 
place  and  posture  for  the  exercise,  the  direction  in 
wliich  the  suppliant  is  to  turn,  and  the  component 
parts  of  whicli  his  prayer  should  consist.  He  who 
would  pray  aright  must  approach  God  with  reverent 


138     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

coinposuic,  aiul  talk  with  Him  as  to  an  actual  onlooker 
and  listener.  It  is  also  fitting  that  he  stand  upright, 
with  hands  outstretched  and  eyes  uplifted.  Except  in 
sickness,  no  one  should  pray  sitting  or  reclining.  The 
penitent  should  pray  on  bended  knee.  It  is  advisable 
to  have  a  set  apartment  for  prayer,  and  that  one  which 
is  never  desecrated.  Of  all  places  the  most  suitable  to 
pray  in  is  the  church,  where  the  faithful  are  gathered 
in  the  inuuediate  presence  of  the  angels,  of  the  power 
of  our  Lord  and  Saviour,  and  of  the  spirits  of  the 
departed.  Origen  thinks  it  natural  that  in  prayer  we 
should  turn  to  the  East  as  symbolising  the  outlook  of 
the  soul  upon  the  dawn  of  the  true  light.  The  parts 
of  prayer  are  these : — the  ascription  of  glory  to  God 
through  Christ  in  the  Holy  Spirit;  tiianksgiving, 
general  and  special ;  confession  of  sin ;  petition  for 
great  and  heavenly  things  both  for  one's  self  and  for 
all,  particulai-ly  for  acquaintances  and  friends.  As 
prayer  begins,  so  should  it  end  with  praising  and 
glorifying  the  Father  of  all  through  Jesus  Christ 
in  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  whom  be  glory  for  ever  and 
ever. 

The  treatise  on  Martyrdcni  was  addressed  to  Ambro- 
sius  and  Theoktetus  (a  presbyter  of  Csesarea),  who 
were  cast  into  prison  during  the  persecution  under 
Maximinus  Thrax.  It  has  been  justly  styled  "  a  golden 
work."  Even  the  essay  on  Prayer,  in  which  Job  is 
held  up  as  "  the  athlete  of  virtue,"  contains  a  rich  vein 
of  comfort  for  the  afflicted;  but  in  the  Exhortation 
to  Martyrdo7)i  we  have  a  solid  reef  of  this  spiritual 
gold.  The  subject  is  one  upon  which  Origen  was  pre- 
eminently qualilied  to  speak,  and  in  his  little  book  "  we 
catch  the  prolonged  echo  of  the  manly  words  which  in 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGKN  139 

childhood  he  sent  to  his  captive  father:  "Flinch  not 
for  us."  1 

He  be(!;ins  by  reminding  liis  friends  tliat  in  accord- 
ance with  the  principle  laid  down  in  Isa.  xxix.  9-11 
(LXX)  they  must,  as  no  longer  babes  in  Christ,  expect 
trial  upon  trial,  but  that  he  who  has  borne  tribulation 
like  a  strenuous  athlete  receives  also  hope  upon  hope. 
On  this  he  founds  the  exhortation  to  steadfast  endur- 
ance of  temporary  suffering.  Perfect  love  to  God 
implies  not  only  a  willingness  to  put  off  the  earthly 
tabernacle,  but  the  withdrawal  of  the  soul  from  every- 
thing corporeal.  Origen  does  not,  however,  with 
certain  of  the  Gnostics,  excuse  denial  of  Christ  upon 
the  plea  that  it  is  only  the  inner  faith  of  the  heart 
that  is  important.  Those  who  believe  on  Him  with 
the  heart  must  confess  Him  with  the  mouth.  Nor  is 
it,  as  some  pretend,  a  matter  of  indifference  whether 
we  worship  God  as  Jehovah  or  Jupiter  or  Apollo ;  we 
must  call  upon  Him  by  proper  and  scriptural  names. 
A  great  rewai'd  in  heaven  awaits  those  persecuted  for 
righteousness'  sake,  wliile  he  who  denies  Christ  is 
divided  from  Him  as  it  were  by  a  sharp  sword.  The 
faithful  martj'r's  endurance  of  pain  and  utter  self- 
denial  will  be  recompensed  by  the  direct  vision  of 
God.  Origen  exhorts  his  readers  to  act  in  terms  of 
their  baptismal  vows,  and  to  recollect  that  their  struggle 
to  maintain  the  Christian  religion  is  witnessed  by  all 
the  angelic  and  infernal  powers.  Their  N'ictory  would 
rrive   deliiiht   in    heaven ;    their  fall  would   be  hailed 

OCT  * 

by  the  demons  witli  glee.     He  points  them  likewise  to 

the  examples   of   Eleazar  and  the   seven   brethren,  to 

show  how  piety  and  tlie  love  of  God  can  triumph  oxer 

^  Pressense,  Early  Years  of  Chrislianity,  ii.  p.  3'20. 


140     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

the  most  cruel  tortures.  Martyrdom  is  Turtlier  set 
forth  as  the  ideal  expression  of  gratitude  to  God  for 
His  bejicfits.  It  is  "  the  cup  of  salvation."  Althouoh 
we  cannot  again  be  baptized  with  water  and  the  Spirit 
for  tlie  remission  of  sins,  ilierc  is  given  us  the  baptism 
of  martyrdom,  whicli  carries  with  it  the  expiation  of 
post-baptismal  sins.  The  souls  of  those  who  have  been 
slain  for  the  testimon}'  of  Jesus  surround  the  heavenly 
altar  and  minister  forgiveness  of  sins  to  those  who 
pray.  In  offering  up  himself  the  martyr  is  an  im- 
maculate priest  who  offers  an  immaculate  sacrifice,  and 
in  this  respect  resembles  the  great  high  priest  Jesus 
Christ.  For  him  the  winter  storms  are  followed  l)y 
the  flowers  of  spring.  So  much  may  be  gathered  from 
the  Saviour's  warning  forecast  to  the  apostles  regard- 
ing the  treatment  they  should  receive  from  the  world, 
and  from  His  declaration  that  those  who  confess  Him 
before  men  will  be  confessed  by  Him  in  heaven,  while 
those  who  have  denied  Him  He  will  in  turn  deny.  No 
one  therefore  need  be  ashamed  to  carry  the  cross  of 
Jesus.  "  Be  slow  to  love  the  things  which  jDass  away, 
but  do  the  will  of  God,  that  you  may  be  worthy  to  be 
made  one  with  the  Son  and  the  Father  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  according  to  the  prayer  of  the  Saviour:  that 
they  also  may  be  one  in  us."  ^  Created  in  His  image, 
the  human  soul  yearns  for  this  union  with  God;  yet 
man  loves  life.  Why  should  we  hesitate  to  accept 
freedom  from  the  burden  of  the  flesh,  that  with  Chri.st 
we  may  enjoy  the  rest  of  the  blessed  ?  Let  us  show 
that  the  good  seed  has  found  in  our  souls  receptive 
soil,  and  tliat  we  have  built  our  house  upon  the  rock ; 
let  us,  as  those  who  despise  the  trials  and  cares,  the 
1  Oral.  39. 


THE  WRITINGS  OF  ORIGEN  141 

wealth  and  pleasures  of  this  Avorld,  in  the  spirit  of 
wisdom  and  freedom  from  anxiety  hasten  towards  the 
riches  tliat  do  not  decei%'e,  and  towards  the  joys  of 
paradise.  Tlic  martyr's  bk:)od  cries  to  heaven  like  the 
blood  of  Abel.  Perhaps,  too,  as  we  were  purchased 
by  the  precious  blood  of  Jesus,  so  also  may  some  be 
purchased  by  the  precious  blood  of  martyrs,  since  these 
occupy  a  rank  superior  to  that  of  the  merely  rigliteous. 
By  their  death  the}^  exalt  themselves  and  glorify  God. 
Origen  concludes  by  expressing  tlic  hope  that  what 
he  has  written  may  for  the  present  be  useful  to  his 
friends,  and  that  through  the  words  and  wisdom  of 
God,  which  far  excel  anything  human,  they  may  gain 
a  still  clearer  insight  into  the  divine  mysteries  and 
be  made  perfect. 


CHAPTER    VI 

Origen's  Theology:  (Jod  and  His  Self- 
Manifestations 

i.  The  Nature  of  God 

In  his  teaching  with  reference  to  tlie  divine  nature, 
Origen  puts  in  the  forei'ront  tlie  absohite  ininiateriaht}'- 
of  God.  He  is  pure  Spirit,  and  devoid  of  every  element 
of  corporeity ;  pure  intelligence,  and  not  to  be  conceived 
in  a  physical  sense  either  because  compared  in  Scripture 
■with  fire  and  light,  or  because  many  saints  participate 
in  the  Holy  Spirit.  "It  must  not  be  supposed,  then, 
tliat  God  is  either  a  body  or  in  a  body ;  He  is  a  simple 
intellectual  nature,  admitting  of  no  addition  at  all. 
There  is  in  Him  no  greater  or  less,  no  higher  or  lower, 
for  He  is  tlie  monad,  unit,  mind,  the  fountain  of  all 
mind."  ^  Strictly  speaking,  perhaps,  God  is  not  sub- 
stance, being  bei/ond  it ;  but  if  the  corporeal  clement 
be  excluded,  tliis  term  may  be  applicable.  Either 
way,  however,  it  is  inaccurate  to  say  tliat  God 
pai'takes  of  substance,  for  He  does  not  partake  of, 
but  is  partaken  of  by,  whatever  has  being.  He  is 
"  of  nothing,"  the  One  in  contrast  to  the  many,  the 
absolute,    Existence    as    contrasted    with    conditioned 

1  Dc  rrinc.  i.  L  6. 
142 


ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY  143 

existences,  and  revealed  by  the  dependence,  tlie  order, 
and  the  yearning-  of  the  manifold  as  tlie  Source  of 
all  good. 

Since  in  its  operations  mind  is  independent  of  time, 
space,  and  bodily  maonitnde,  God  as  entirely  spiritual 
is  also  eternal  and  uncluiui^cable.  His  work  in  the 
field  of  the  temporal  may  produce  the  impression  that 
He  is  Himself  subject  to  change.  In  reality  He  is 
above  it,  exalted  above  time  in  an  everlasting  now, 
and  dwelling  in  space  only  as  tlie  architect  may  be 
said  to  inhabit  his  work.  Not  that  He  is  to  be  con- 
sidered the  soul  of  the  world  in  the  Stoical  sense ;  His 
all-comprehending  presence  takes  the  purely  spiritual 
form  of  an  almighty  superintending  providence.  He 
is  potentially  e\er3' where,  and  His  presence  in  one 
place  does  not  imply  His  absence  from  another.  His 
throne  was  not  left  vacant  when,  rich  in  mercy,  He 
came  down  in  the  person  of  Jesus  to  share  and  to 
elevate  the  life  of  humanity. 

Subject  to  no  change,  God  is  also  devoid  of  passion. 
Only  in  condescension  to  our  weakness  does  Scripture 
ascribe  to  Him  vengeance,  anger,  regret,  and  the  like. 
As  He  is  altogether  impassible,  these  are  feelings  quite 
foreign  to  His  nature,  and  such  passages  as  ascribe 
them  to  Him  are  not  to  be  interpreted  literally ;  we  are 
to  "seek  in  them  a  spiritual  meaning,  that  we  may 
think  of  God  as  He  deserves  to  be  thouglit  of."  If, 
for  example,  He  is  called  a  consuming  fire,  it  is  only 
in  the  sense  of  destroying  the  evil  that  finds  its  way 
into  our  minds,  and  so  into  our  actions.  To  speak  of 
the  wrath  of  God  will  yet  become  an  impossibility 
through  the  final  restoration  of  all  things.  No 
man  is  hated  by  God,  who  loves  His  whole  creation. 


144     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

Punishment  is  not  His  work,  but  the  inevitable  wages 
of  sin. 

Abstract  as  are  many  of  his  notions  with  respect  to 
the  Deity,  Origen  liolds  firmlj'-  to  the  absolute  causality 
of  God  as  a  self-conscious  Being  who  gives  expression 
to  His  will  in  that  Avhich  He  creates.  His  conception 
of  God  is  therefore  more  personal  than  that  of  the 
Neoplatonists,  who  view  Him  as  first  developing  the 
consciousness  of  Himself  through  tlie  Logos.  Accord- 
ingly, wliile  conceiving  God  as  entirely  free  from  the 
emotional  disturbance  of  passion,  and  as  framing  His 
decrees  in  the  calmness  of  wisdom,  Origen  by  no  means 
regards  Him  as  devoid  of  attributes.  "  The  Fatlier 
Himself  and  God  of  all,"  he  says,  "is  long-suffering, 
merciful,  and  pitiful.  Has  He  not  then  in  a  sense 
passions  ?  The  Father  Himself  is  not  impassible.  He 
has  the  passion  of  love."^  Tliis  may  seem  scarcely 
consistent  with  his  general  position  as  indicated  above, 
and  indeed  occasionally  Origen  is  tempted  to  go  so  far 
in  this  direction  that  he  virtually  w^ithdraws  his  own 
statements.^  It  is  perhaps  a  fair  thing  to  say  that  he 
"  liad  experienced  that  state  of  consciousness  exempli- 
fied for  us  by  all  exalted  Christian  spirits,  in  which 
joy  and  sorrow  cease  to  be  passions  and  are  no  longer 
contraries.  He  did  not  clearly  see  that  what  is  true 
of  goodness  and  justice  is  true  of  love  and  sympathy. 
They  differ  not  in  themselves  but  in  their  objects."^ 

In  opposition  to  the  Gnostics,  who  sought  to  dis- 
tinguish between  the  just  God  of  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  merciful    Father   of   tlie   Lord   Jesus    Christ, 

^  In  Ezcch.,  Horn.  vi.  6. 

^  E.g.  in  Num.,  Horn,  xxiii.  2. 

^  Bigg,  Christian  riatonists,  p.  158,  note  1. 


ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY  145 

Origon  stoutly  maintains  tlieir  identity.  Not  only  so ; 
he  maintains  the  identity  of  the  attributes  of  goodness 
and  justice  tliemselves.  In  this  he  diverges  from  the 
view  of  Irena3us  and  Tertullian  that  these  are  opposite 
attributes,  yet  necessarily  coexisting  in  God.  Accord- 
ing to  Origen,  the  indiscriminate  bestowal  of  benefits 
upon  all,  irrespective  of  conduct,  argues  a  perverted 
notion  of  goodness,  whereas  punishment  inflicted  as  a 
deterrent  from  evil  implies  real  goodness.  God  recom- 
penses in  justice  and  punishes  in  kindness;  with  Him 
justice  is  a  manifestation  of  goodness. 

Although  a  relative  knowledge  of  Him  is  derivable 
from  the  Manifold,  God  is  in  fact  incomprehensible. 
Clouds  and  darkness  are  round  about  Him ;  His  ways 
are  past  finding  out.  It  is  possible  through  strenuous 
effort  and  by  the  aid  of  enlightening  grace  to  go  a 
certain  length  in  this  direction,  but  behind  what  we 
may  thus  discover  tliere  stretches  so  to  speak  a  bound- 
less region  of  unexplorable  territor}^  He  dwells  far 
above  the  reach  of  our  feeble  perception.  As  the  sun- 
beams that  stream  through  a  chink  in  the  wall  to  the 
sun  itself,  so  is  the  knowledge  of  God  derived  from  the 
beauty  of  His  works.  These  are  merely  "rays  as  it 
were  of  the  nature  of  God  in  comparison  with  His  real 
substance  and  being."  Brighter  is  the  revelation  which 
we  have  in  Christ,  "  the  image  of  the  invisible  God." 
He  that  has  seen  Him  has  seen  the  Father,  yet  onl}^  in 
the  measure  made  possible  to  him  by  divine  grace. 
That  God  is  meanwhile  incomprehensible  to  us  is  not 
due  to  anything  in  the  divine  nature  or  in  our  own. 
God  is  light,  and  in  proportion  as  we  get  nearer  to 
Him  will  the  shadows  flee  away.  One  day  He  shall 
impart  to  us  His  Spirit  without  measure,  and  we  shall 
10 


146     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

know  Him  as  He  is  known  by  tlie  only-begotten  Son, 
and  see  Him  face  to  face. 

Inasmuch  as  he  never  conceives  of  God  apart  from 
revehition,  which  is  necessarily  partial,  Origen  does  not 
hesitate  to  bring  in  his  relative  view  of  things  even 
with  respect  to  the  Doity.  God  is  not  without  limita- 
tion either  as  to  His  knowledge  or  His  power.  He 
foresees,  indeed,  all  that  comes  to  pass ;  but  this  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  in  the  beo-innin"^  He  created,  accordino- 
to  a  definite  standard  of  number  and  measure,  as  many 
rational  beings  and  material  bodies  as  He  knew  would 
admit  of  being  governed  by  Him  and  be  sufficient  for 
the  adorning  of  the  world,  as  well  as  to  the  further 
circumstance  that  the  duration  of  the  world  is  limited. 
In  respect  of  omnipotence  also  God  is  not  unconditioned. 
From  the  very  nature  of  the  case  His  power  is  limited. 
Were  it  not  so,  it  would  be  incomprehensible  even  to 
Himself.  But  in  fact  He  can  do  only  what  He  wills.^ 
He  is  thus  limited  not  by  the  resistance  of  created 
matter,  but  through  His  own  nature,  in  virtue  of  His 
own  reason  and  His  own  goodness.  It  is,  moreover, 
morally  certain  that  God  cannot  do  what  is  evil,  and 
logically  certain  that  He  can  do  nothing  contrary  to 
nature,  alth<nigh  some  of  His  miracles  may  appear  to 
be  incredible.  Finally,  tliere  arc  evils  inseparable  from 
the  carrying  out  even  of  the  wisest  plans  of  the  Creator : 
"  Evils  in  the  strict  sense  are  not  created  by  God ;  yet 
some,  though  but  few  in  comparison  with  the  great, 

1  Contra  Cdsum,  v.  23.  Oi'igcn  was  afterwards  accused  by  his  enemies 
of  teaching  that  God  cannot  do  anything  tliat  He  has  not  done.  Tins 
was  perhaps  in  reality  only  an  int'eienoe  from  his  teaching — not  qnito 
unwarrantable,  it  must  be  said  ;  liut  this  view  was  in  later  times 
expressly  taught  by  Abelard,  who  further  maintained  that  God  cannot 
leave  undone  anything  that  is  good. 


ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY  147 

well-ordered  whole  o£  the  world,  have  of  necessity 
adhered  to  the  objects  realised,  as  the  carpenter  who 
executes  the  plan  of  a  building-  does  not  numao-e 
without  chips  and  similar  rubbish,  or  as  architects 
cannot  be  made  responsible  for  the  dirty  heaps  of 
broken  stones  and  filth  one  sees  at  the  sites  of  build- 
ings." ^  The  truth  is,  Origen  has  none  of  the  modern 
reverence  for  the  word  infinite.  To  him  as  a  Christian 
Platonist  it  is  nearly  ecjuivalent  to  evil,  and  the  very 
perfection  of  the  divine  attributes  lies  in  their  mutually 
limiting  character. 

It  is  upon  this  consideration  that  Origen  bases  his 
view  of  the  created  universe  as  at  once  limited  in  extent 
and  timeless  in  the  sense  that  there  was  no  time  when 
it  was  not.  If  JBons  did  elapse  before  it  existed,  then 
in  those  aeons  God  cannot  have  been  what  He  is  as 
Lord  of  all.  But  to  grant  this  would  be  to  deny  His 
unchangeableness,  and  to  suppose  Him  capable  of  a 
transition  from  lower  to  higher,  from  the  potential  to 
the  actual— an  impossible  position,  which  amounts  to  a 
denial  of  His  perfection.  The  idea  of  a  Creator  neces- 
sarily involves  that  of  a  creation ;  it  is  in  virtue  of 
creating  that  God  becomes  Creator.  As,  however,  time 
did  not  exist  before  the  world,  and  has  an  end,  God  as 
First  Cause  of  the  world  is  above  time,  and  must  be 
conceived  as  existing  prior  to  matter.  Matter  is  there- 
fore not  coeternal  with  Him  whose  being-  is  everlasting 
and  timeless,  with  whom  it  is  always  to-day.  If  it  be 
suggested  that  in  this  case  God  must  have  been  idle 
before  the  world  began,  Origen  replies  that  God's  work 
did  not  begin  with  the  making  of  this  world,  which 
was  preceded,  as  it  will  be  followed,  by  countless  others. 
'  Contra  Celsum,  vi.  55. 


148     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

ii.  The  Dodrine  of  ihe  Trivify 

Tlie  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  had  been  clearly  defined 
in  the  baptismal  formula,  and  had  been  mentioned  by 
Ju.stin  and  others  as  a  necessary  part  of  the  Church's 
creed.  Towards  the  close  of  the  second  centuiy  we 
find  it  definitely  named,  and  its  significance  grasped  as 
affirmino-  both  unity  in  trinity  and  trinity  in  unity. 
From  this  time  it  became  tJie  problem  of  Christianity. 
The  conception  of  one  God  in  three  Persons  liad  been 
distinctly  reached,  but  as  to  the  nature  and  relations  of 
these  Persons  somewhat  vague  notions  still  prevailed. 
Writers  like  Athenagoras  and  Tertulliau  show,  how- 
ever, the  general  trend  of  ecclesiastical  tradition  with 
reference  to  these  questions.  This  was  a  lead  whicli 
Clement  and  Origen  felt  constrained  to  follow.  If 
they  were  bold  speculative  thinkers,  they  were  also 
loyal  sons  of  the  Church,  and  their  attachment  to  the 
latter  proved  the  dominating  influence.  What  renders 
this  all  the  more  remarkable  is  that  Greek  Christianity 
undoubtedly  drew  much  of  its  inspii-ation  from  Jewish 
tlieosophy.  For  the  thought  of  Clement  and  Origen 
the  Apologists  of  the  second  century  are  of  little  account, 
it  is  Philo  who  is  their  "guide,  philosopher,  and  friend." 
Yet,  altliough  it  is  in  the  writings  of  this  brilliant 
Alexandrian  that  the  first  traces  of  Trinitarian  doctrine 
occur,  their  Trinity  is  not  Philo's,  but  a  fuller  develop- 
ment of  the  New  Testament  doctrine  on  the  lines  already 
marked  out  by  the  tradition  of  the  Church,  While  it  is 
ti-ue  that  "  Clement  neglects  almost  as  much  as  Philo 
the  third  hypostasis  of  the  Trir.ify,"  he  at  any  rate 
avoids  the  inconsistency  wliich  leads  tliat  writer  to 
suggest  several    different    trinities.      And    if    Clement 


ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY  149 

says  nothing  explicit  as  to  tlic  nature  ol"  the  tliiixl 
Person,  His  relation  to  the  other  two  Persons,  and  His 
special  function,  the  writings  of  Origen  exhibit  a  most 
palpable  advance  in  this  respect.  To  some  extent  this 
is  true  even  as  regards  his  treatment  of  the  first  two 
hypostases  of  the  Trinity,  but  is  most  notable  in  his 
discussion  of  questions  pertaining  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Already  in  0)-igen's  time,  particularly  at  Rome,  the 
air  vibrated  with  strife  as  to  the  sense  in  which  God  is 
One,  and  at  the  same  time  Three.  The  latter  aspect  of 
the  problem  formed  the  more  immediate  subject  of  con- 
troversy. It  was  not  so  much  the  truth  of  the  divine 
unity  that  exercised  the  minds  of  disputants  as  the 
precise  significance  to  be  attached  to  certain  real  dis- 
tinctions in  the  divine  Essence,  the  existence  of  which 
is  a  matter  of  revelation.  Of  most  crucial  importance 
was  the  question  as  to  the  distinct  personality  of  the 
Son.  What  Origen  and  the  theologians  of  his  age  were 
chiefly  concerned  to  show  was,  that  while  Jesus  is  God 
He  is  nevertheless  not  the  Father.  But,  broadly  speak- 
ing, the  task  they  set  themselves  was  the  elaboration  of 
the  doctrine  of  three  Persons  or  Subsistences  in  the 
Godhead.^ 

The  Father. — Although  maintaining  that  God  is  in- 
comprehensible, Origen  yet  regards  Him  as  to  some 
extent  knowable,  for  apart  from  a  certain  knowledge 
of  Him  we  could  not  even  know  that  He  is  incompre- 
hensible, and  in  what  respects  He  is  so.  On  the  ques- 
tion as  to  how  we  attain  to  a  knowledge  of  God,  Origen 

1  Suhstantia  and  persona  are  used  by  Latin  writers  as  the  equivalents 
of  the  Greek  hypostasis  and  ousia.  It  was  peculiarly  unfortunate,  and 
the  prolific  source  of  much  misunderstanding,  that  the  Greek  word  for 
person  should  have  been  thus  interchanged  with  the  Latin  word  for 
substance. 


150     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

holds  as  against  Celsus  that  the  notion  oi"  God  cannot 
1)0  arrived  at  by  analysis  and  synthesis,  hut  only 
thron»ili  "a  certain  grace  iiiboi'n  in  the  soul,  not  with- 
out CJod,  but  with  a  certain  enthusiasm."  It  is  a  special 
gil't  of  intuition.  This  position  is  etiually  subversive  of 
the  method  oi"  abstraction  employed  by  Clen\ent,  who 
attempts  through  a  process  of  exhaustion — namely,  by 
eliminating  in  succession  the  conditions  of  creaturely 
existence — delinitely  to  determine  the  idea  of  God.  It 
was  a  fundamental  axiom  in  the  tlujught  of  Origen,  as 
subsequently  in  that  oi'  Leibnitz,  that  God  is  not  to  be 
discovered  by  any  scientilic  demonstration,  but  is  near 
us  in  our  hearts. 

In  the  idea  of  God  thus  intuitively  implanted  within 
us  there  is  a  positive  element  which  the  method  of 
negation  only  serves  to  bring  into  sharper  relief. 
According  to  Origen,  this  is  the  idea  of  goodness ;  ^  and 
however  incomprehensible  God  may  be  in  the  dcptlis  of 
His  being,  yet  because  of  tlie  intimate  relation  in  wliich 
the  idea  of  the  good  stands  to  reason,  He  becomes  in- 
telligible to  His  rational  creatures.  Goodness  is  in 
Him  an  essential  attribute  of  His  nature ;  with  Him 
to  be  is  to  be  good.  To  Him  alone  belongs  the  fulness 
of  being  and  of  goodness.  Partaking  of  nothing,  whilst 
He  is  Himself  partaken  of  by  all,  He  is  the  principle 
alike  of  existence  and  of  Deity.  He  is  God  in  Himself, 
the  true  God,  the  God  of  gods.  It  is  only,  however, 
through  the  study  of  the  relation  of  the  First  Person  of 
the  Trinity  to  the  Second  and  the  Third  that  Origen's 
theory  of  the  Father  can  be  exempted  from  the  cate- 
gory of  obscure  generalities. 

'  Thiy  is  .siiiii.ly  Plato's  idea  of  tlic  good,  but  in  a  somewhat  move 
pLTSDiial  t'oini. 


ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY  151 

The  Son. — It  belongs  to  the  idea  of  God  as  the  abso- 
hitely  good  to  reveal  or  communicate  Himself.  The 
life  which  has  its  source  in  Him  must  necessarily  flow 
forth  to  other  beings.  And  as  God  is  unchangeable, 
this  process  never  had  a  beginning ;  it  is  eternal.  But 
it  is  only  through  the  Logos  that  God  acts  upon  the 
world.  He  must  lay  aside  His  absolute  apathy  as  pure 
Intelligence,  and  assume  this  form  in  order  to  come  into 
close  touch  with  the  Manifold.  While  Origen's  doctrine 
of  the  Logos  bears  a  general  resemblance  to  that  of 
Pliilo,  and  is  not  free  from  the  contradictory  elements 
contained  in  the  latter,  it  is  characterised  by  more 
crispness  of  definition,  and  by  a  clearer  affirmation  of 
the  distinct  personality  of  the  Logos,  whom  he  iden- 
tifies with  Christ.  According  to  Origen,  the  Logos  who 
appeared  in  Christ  is  the  Word  or  Son  of  God,  His 
Wisdom  hypostatically  existing,  eternally  begotten,  and 
of  like  essence  with  the  Father.  He  is  the  truth  and  life 
of  all  things  which  exist.  He  is  not  an  emanation  from 
God,  who  is  indivisible,  but  the  complete  self -revelation 
of  the  Father,  "  the  brightness  of  His  glory,  and  the 
express  image  of  His  person."  As  Creator  of  the 
world  He  is  innneasurably  exalted  above  it;  yet  as 
Himself  derived,  He  is  subordinate  to  the  Father,  who 
is  the  alone  Absolute.  He  is  truly  God,  but  "  second 
God."  Origen  contends  equally  for  the  independent 
personalit}^  and  for  the  true  divinity,  of  the  Son, 
although  he  is  led  by  the  exigencies  of  debate  some- 
times to  emphasise  His  subordination  to,  and  at  other 
times  to  claim  for  Him  virtual  equality  with,  the 
Father.  His  aim,  of  course,  is  to  represent  the  Father 
as  the  one  foundation  of  Godhead,  while  at  the  same 
time  conserving  true  Deity  for  the  Son.     The  main 


152     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

positions  here  deuiaiul,  pevliaps,  somewhat  fuller  state- 
ment. 

The  Son  is  coeternal  with  tlie  Father  :  "  there  never 
was  a  time  when  He  was  not."  God  and  His  Wisdom 
are  as  inseparable  in  tlionght  as  are  light  and  splendour. 
Something  like  an  act  of  the  will,  wdiich  proceeds  from 
the  understanding  without  being  divided  from  it,  is  the 
begetting  of  the  Son  by  the  Father.  He  proceeds  from 
the  Father's  essence  as  the  Son  of  His  will.  It  is  not, 
however,  an  act  that  has  taken  place  at  some  definite 
moment,  for  it  had  no  beginning,  and  is  a  continual  and 
eternal  process.  Neither  by  thought  nor  figure  can  this 
begetting  be  adequately  explained  to  the  human  mind  ; 
but  tlic  resultant  Logos  is  a  living  being,i  ^^  second 
person,  -with  an  independent  existence.  Tliis  thought 
of  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son,  whicli  tlie  Chris- 
tian Church  has  accepted  as  "  the  truest  human  expres- 
sion of  one  side  of  the  mystery  of  the  essential  Trinity," 
was  first  worked  out  by  Origen. 

As  incorporeal  and  invisible,  as  the  perfect  image  of 
God's  person  and  the  unspotted  mirror  of  His  power, 
as  being,  so  to  speak,  the  very  soul  of  God,  tlie  only- 
begotten  Son  is  truly  God,  sharing  in  TTis  essence,  i)ossess- 
ing  all  His  attributes,  and  therefore  also  coequal  with 
Him — "the  same  in  substance  with  the  Father."  That 
the  omnipotence  of  Fatlier  and  Son  is  one  and  tlie  same 
is,  he  says,  shown  by  tlie  woi'ds  of  St.  John  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse: "Thus  saith  the  Lord  God,  wdiicli  is,  and  wliicli 
was,  and  which  is  to  come,  the  Almiglity."  "  For  who 
else  was  '  He  which  is  to  come  '  than  Christ  ?  "  As  the 
purest  efflux  of  the  glory  of  the  Almiglity,  Wisdom, 

^  "Animal  viveiis."  Origen  (juotes  the  expression  from  the  Acts  of 
Paul,  a  siiurious  ecclesiastical  treatise  mentioned  by  Eusebius. 


ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY  153 

which  is  Christ,  can  sa}^  "  All  Mine  arc  Thine,  and  Thine 
are  Mine";  and  also,  as  the  stainless  mirror  of  the 
working  of  God,  "  What  things  soever  the  Father  doetli, 
these  also  doeth  the  Son  likewise."  From  this  point  of 
view  Origen  concludes  that  there  is  "  no  dissimilarity 
whatever  between  the  Son  and  the  Father." 

When,  however,  he  asserts  that  this  is  true  only  in 
relation  to  the  world,  the  statement  loses  much  of  its 
force.  Although  from  our  standpoint  He  is  tlie  mani- 
fest essential  God,  yet  "as  soon  as  the  catcgoiy  of 
causality  is  applied,  and  the  particular  contemplation 
of  the  Son  in  relation  to  the  Father  gives  way  to  the 
general  contemplation  of  His  task  and  destination,  the 
Son  is  not  only  called  creature  and  demiurge,  but  all 
the  utterances  about  the  quality  of  His  essence  receive 
a  limitation."  ^  His  coequality  with  the  Father  is  con- 
ditioned by  the  fact  tliat  the  Son's  existence  is  some- 
thing derived.  Althougli  not  created.  He  is  begotten. 
As  distinct  from  God  the  Father,  who  is  tlic  First 
Cause,  the  Son  is  "  that  which  is  caused."  Tlius  the 
Father  is  greater  than  the  Son.  Wliat  He  is  the  Son 
derives  from  the  Father,  so  that  even  those  properties 
which  belong  to  His  Deity  do  not  exist  in  Him  in  the 
same  absolute  sense  as  in  tlie  Father.  As  the  first 
stage  in  the  transition  from  the  uncreated  One  to  the 
created  Many,  His  unchangeableness  is  only  relative. 
His  goodness  is  not  absolute,  but  the  perfect  image  of 
the  absolute  goodness  of  the  Father,  who  is  exalted 
above  the  Son  as  far  as  the  Son  Himself  is  exalted 
above  all  thrones,  principalities,  and  powers.  The 
all-embracing  Kingdom  of  the  Father  is  more  extensive 
than  that  of  the  Son,  which  is  confined  to  ■  rational 
^  Harnack,  History  of  Do(jma,  ii.  p.  357. 


154     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

beings,  and  which  in  turn  is  greater  than  that  oi"  the 
Holy  Spirit,  wliich  extends  only  to  the  saints.  Christ's 
Kingdom  conies  to  an  end  ;  after  all  has  been  subjected 
to  Him,  Ho  shall  be  subjected  to  the  Father,  and  God 
shall  be  all  in  all.  There  is  nowhere  any  attempt  to 
detract  from  the  divinity  of  the  Son;  on  the  contrary, 
pra}'er  ma}''  be  made  to  Him.  But  along  with  this 
there  is  everywhere  the  reminder  that  God  is  the 
Father  of  all  that  is.  Strictly  speaking,  however,  the 
subordination  here  taught  by  Origen  is  not  a  subordina- 
tion of  essence,  but  one  of  function  in  relation  to  the 
manifestation  of  the  Persons  of  the  Godhead  to  creatures; 
that  is  to  say,  the  Son  as  Son  is  inferior  to  the  Father 
as  Father.  Its  basis,  moreover,  is  scriptural  rather  than 
metaphysical.  It  was  dictated  by  no  spirit  of  presump- 
tion, but  by  a  loj'^al  and  courageous  acceptance  of  Christ's 
own  testimony  when  He  says,  "  None  is  good  save  One," 
and  "  My  Father  is  greater  than  I." 

The  Son's  relations  to  the  world  are  set  forth  in 
Scripture  under  a  variety  of  titles.  While  in  this 
respect  the  Father  as  the  highest  absolute  unity  can 
only  be  One,  the  Son  is  Manifold.  As  the  perfect 
image  of  the  mind  of  God  He  is  first  of  all  Wisdom ; 
then  as  the  medium  of  revelation  He  is  the  Word ; 
further,  as  the  source  and  sustainer  of  rational  beings 
and  inanimate  nature.  He  is  the  Truth  and  the  Life. 
But  tliese  qualities,  which  belong  to  Christ  immutably 
as  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  Origen  distinguishes 
from  those  hiiman  and  accidental  properties  which  He 
assumed  for  the  purpose  of  redemption.  To  this  latter 
class  are  reckoned  His  functions  as  the  God  -  Man, 
Physician,  Shepherd,  Lamb  of  God,  etc.  The  two 
categories  Origen  likens  to  the  higher  and  lower  steps 


ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY  155 

of  the  ascent  to  the  Holy  oC  holies.  With  all  this  he 
disclaims  any  intention  of  introducing  a  distinction 
into  the  essence  oi"  the  8on.  It  is  not  implied  that 
Christ  will  ever  divest  Himself  of  His  glorified  body, 
or  that  we  shall  ever  be  able  to  do  withont  Him  as 
the  Life  and  the  Truth.  If  one  day  we  shall  see  the 
Father  even  as  the  Son  sees  Him,  and  the  work  of 
redemption  and  mediation  thus  take  end,  this  will  only 
be  because  we  shall  be  "  of  one  spirit  with  the  Lord." 

In  Origen's  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  however,  far  more 
stress  is  laid  upon  His  significance  as  Creator  and 
Teacher  than  upon  His  work  as  Redeemer.  Indeed  it 
is  the  mark  of  the  true  Christian  that  he  has  outgrown 
the  need  of  redemption  viewed  as  forgiveness,  and  no 
longer  requires  the  Physician's  healing  or  the  Shep- 
herd's care.  Thus,  in  order  to  the  fulfilment  of  the 
purpose  of  redemption,  we  must  ultimately  pass  l)eyond 
the  crucified  Jesus  to  the  Word.  As  this  is,  according 
to  Origen,  the  path  to  the  higher  life,  it  is  small  wonder 
that,  often  as  the  name  recurs  in  his  writings,  tlie 
Person  of  Christ  is  of  no  real  importance  to  his  con- 
ception of  the  Logos.  The  weakness  of  Origen's 
position  lies  indeed  just  here;  he  confounds  the  two 
conceptions  Logos  and  Son,  and  fails  firmly  to  grasp 
that  of  the  premundane  personality  of  the  Logos. 

Tlie  spirit. — Origen  remarks  that  while  the  Greek 
philosophers  have  by  the  light  of  nature  and  of  the 
human  mind  been  able  to  recognise  God  as  the  Father 
of  the  universe,  and  in  some  cases  also  have  even 
attained  to  an  idea  of  the  existence  of  the  Son  as  the 
word  or  reason  of  God,  the  belief  in  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
confined  entirely  to  Christianity.  This  eflfectually  dis- 
poses of  the  contention  of  those  who  would  ascribe  his 


156     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

heterodox  views  upon  tlic  Trinity  to  his  fondness  for 
Plato.  No  specuhitivc  necessity  led  him  to  place  the 
Spirit  alongside  of  the  Father  and  the  Son ;  he  did  so 
entirely  out  of  deference  to  the  rule  of  faitli,  according 
to  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  "  associated  in  honour  and 
dignity  with  the  Father  and  the  Son."  In  affirming  the 
tliree  Persons,  he,  of  course,  implies  the  distinct  person- 
ality of  the  Spirit,  and  He  expressly  speaks  of  His 
divinity,^  although  he  nowhere  definitely  calls  Him  God. 
The  thought,  however,  is  unquestionably  present  to  his 
mind ;  it  lay  wrapped  up,  indeed,  in  the  Ijaptismal 
formula.  Prayer  may  be  directed  to  Him  as  to  the  Sun. 
His  essential  Godhead,  moreover,  involves  His  eternity ; 
it  is  He  who  in  the  beginning  moved  upon  the  face  of  the 
waters.  He  is  the  inspirer  of  both  prophets  and  apostles, 
and  is  designated  in  Old  and  New  Testament  alike  Spirit 
or  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  through  the  Spirit  that  men  arc 
enabled  to  receive  Christ  as  Justice  and  Wisdom ;  it  is 
through  the  Spirit  that  they  are  sanctified  and  perfected. 
Although  Origen  represents  the  Spirit  as  sliaring  in 
tlie  work  of  creation,^  he  states  that  the  Church  in  his 
time  had  reached  no  settled  view  as  to  whether  He 
Himself  is  created  or  uncreated.  This  is  a  point,  he 
says,  demanding  "careful  investigation,"  but  he  fails 
to  formulate  any  clear  and  consistent  doctrine  regard- 
ing it.  In  general,  he  avoids  language  wliich  would 
suggest  that  the  Spirit  is  a  creature ;  but  while  some- 
times he  asserts  that  He  is  not  to  be  reckoned  among 
the  "all  things"  made  by  the  Son,  at  other  times  he 
takes  the  very  opposite  view.^     In  spite  of  tin's  vacilla- 

1  JJc  Frinc.  ii.  7.  3.  -  De  Priiic.  iv.  30. 

^  Both  views  arc  expressed  even  iu  comments  upon  the  same  passage 
{John  ii.  6). 


ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY  157 

tion,  he  appears  to  arrive  at  the  conclusion  tluxt  the 
Spirit  "  is  become  "  through  tlie  Son.  In  other  words, 
the  Spirit  is  created,  but  in  a  peculiar  sense ;  He  is  the 
tirst  creation  of  the  Fatlier  througli  the  Son,  and  there- 
fore subordinate  to  the  Son,  as  the  Son  is  to  the 
Father.  In  connection  with  His  acceptance  and  treat- 
ment of  the  mysterious  dogma  of  tlie  Trinity,  it  is  very 
apparent  on  the  one  hand  tliat  Origen  does  all  he  can 
to  eliminate  every  idea  that  savours  of  the  created, 
and  on  the  other  tliat  in  passing  from  the  considera- 
tion of  the  concept  God  to  that  of  the  two  other  divine 
Persons,  he  experiences  extreme  difficulty  in  avoiding 
the  use  of  language  which  tends  to  reduce  the  Son  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  rank  of  creatures.  Although 
his  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  worked  out  witli  an 
explicitness  unknown  to  any  of  his  predecessors,  he 
was  certainly  far  from  happy  in  his  mode  of  conceiving 
the  Spirit's  personality. 

While  all  things  derive  their  existence  from  God  the 
Father,  and  are  subject  to  His  power,  and  while  the 
Son  as  the  principle  of  reason  imparts  reason  to  all 
rational  beings,  the  Spirit's  sphere  of  action  is  limited 
to  the  saints.  Hence  the  special  ministry  of  the  Spirit, 
although  the  most  important,  is  also  the  most  circum- 
scribed. That  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  extends 
without  distinction  to  every  creature,  but  only  the 
sanctified  have  a  share  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
difference  in  the  circumference  of  these  concentric 
circles  into  which  existence  is  thus  divided  is,  however, 
only  of  temporary  duration,  for  in  the  end  the  wliole 
rational  creation  will  be  raised  to  the  level  of  the  holy. 
This  result  is  attained  through  the  grace  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.     Not  that  His  dignity  is  greater  than  tliat  of 


158     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

the  Father  and  the  Son ;  on  the  contrary,  the  Father's 
power  is  greater  tlian  tliat  oi"  the  Son,  and  that  of  the 
Son  greater  than  that  oi'  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  from 
the  point  of  view  of  Origen's  system,  this  formula 
really  lacks  the  precision  which  it  seems  to  possess. 
For  as  only  the  rational  creation  is  abiding,  all  else 
being  doomed  to  vanish  away,  and  as  all  rational  beings 
are  destined  to  holiness,  the  action  of  the  three  Persons 
of  the  Trinity  in  relation  to  creatures  does  not  ulti- 
mately \'ary  in  extension.  The  terms  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit  merely  mark,  as  regards  its  three  principal 
movements,  the  one  though  diverse  activity  of  God. 

Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  form  a  Trinity  in  which 
there  is  no  difference,  and  in  which  accordingly  nothing 
can  be  called  greater  or  less.  The  three  Persons  are  of 
the  same  nature  and  essence,  equal  in  dignity  and 
honour.  Their  consubstantiality  is  such  that  the  Spirit 
of  the  Father  is  the  same  as  the  Spirit  of  the  Son,  the 
same  as  the  Holy  Spirit.  Hence  the  Trisagion  of 
Isa.  vi.  3;  the  cherubim  are  not  content  with  crying 
"  Holy "  once  or  twice,  but  their  threefold  ascription 
corresponds  to  the  triple  sanctity  of  God  as  represented 
by  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  spite 
of  this  apparently  explicit  statement  as  to  the  equality 
of  the  Persons,  which  is  possibly  due  to  the  correcting 
hand  of  Rufinus,  Origen's  Trinity  is  a  graduated  one, 
based  upon  the  absolute  Godhead  of  the  Father,  from 
whom  the  two  other  Persons  proceed.  Clement  and 
Origen  had  completely  established  the  coeternity  and 
consubstantiality  of  the  three  Persons,  but  it  was  re- 
served for  the  Fathers  of  the  fourth  century  to  put  the 
finishing  touch  to  the  labours  of  the  great  Alexan- 
drian teachers,  by  divesting  themselves  entirely  of  the 


ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY  159 

swaddling-clothes  of  Jewish-Christian  tradition,  and 
unequivocally  assertino-  their  equality  as  well.  As 
God  cannot  be  thought  ui"  apart  from  revelation,  this 
Trinity,  which  in  Origen's  view  constitutes  the  deepest 
mystery  of  the  faith,  remains  a  Trinity  of  revelation. 
"The  gift  of  the  Spirit  is  made  known  through  the 
Son,  and  operated  by  God  the  Father." 

Not  only  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  all  other 
rational  beings  as  well,  proceed  by  a  sort  of  timeless 
emanation  from  the  primal  Deity,  and  in  some  way 
share  in  the  divine  life  and  the  divine  nature,  without 
however  having  identity  of  essence  as  parts  of  the 
Godhead.  According  to  Origcn,  the  rational  element 
is  one  and  the  same  throughout  the  entire  domain  of 
the  spiritual.  Indeed  this  is  the  pivot  upon  wdiich  his 
whole  doctrinal  system  turns.  The  restoration  of  the 
oneness  of  the  spiritual  through  the  removal  of  the 
disturbance  caused  by  the  development  of  the  worldly 
in  antagonism  to  the  divine — in  other  words,  the 
deification  of  humanity — is  the  goal,  as  it  is  also  the 
starting-point,  of  the  Greek  theology. 

Although  not  so  immediately  concerned  with  the 
question  of  the  unity  in  trinity  as  with  that  of  the 
trinity  in  unity,  Origen  and  his  school  were  already 
being  challenged  by  Celsus  and  other  opponents  to 
explain  their  position  with  reference  to  tiie  former 
problem.  Their  doctrine  of  the  threefold  Personality, 
it  was  contended,  could  not  consist  with  belief  in  the 
divine  unity.  An  endeavour  was  made  to  impale  them 
upon  the  horns  of  a  dilemma.  Either  Christianity  was 
monotheism  as  conceived  by  Celsus,  in  which  case  it 
was  merely  on  a  level  with  the  religion  of  the  ancient 


i6o     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

Pcrsiau.s ;  or  it  was  inonotlieism  as  conceived  by 
Noetus/  in  wliicli  case  the  work  of  Jesus  was  purc-ly 
visionary.  In  spite  oi'  the  humble  diffidence  with 
which  he  expresses  liimself  regardin^j-  these  profoundly 
mysterious  themes,  Origen  tenaciously  adheres  to  the 
view  that  God  is  at  once  Three  and  One.  While 
alfirming  the  distinction  of  Persons,  he  denies  that 
there  is  therefore  actual  division ;  "  for  to  ascribe 
division  to  an  incorporeal  beini^-  is  not  only  the  height 
of  impiety,  but  a  mark  of  the  greatest  folly."  ^  He 
holds  that  between  Father  and  Son  there  is  complete 
mutual  circumincession  or  interpeneti'ation,  unity  of 
substance,  and  identity  of  will ;  and  the  same  thing 
holds  good  with  regard  to  the  entire  Trinity. 

'  Noetus  was  a  presbyter  of  Smyrna,  who  held  by  "modalistic 
monarehiani.sm,"  i.e.  the  opinion  that  Jesus  was  a  mere  man,  and 
constituted  tlie  Son  of  God  only  because  of  the  unique  degree  in  which 
He  was  filled  with  divine  power  and  wisdom. 

-  De  Princ.  i.  2.  C. 


CHAPTER    VII 

Origen's  Theology:  Creation  and  the  Fall 

i.  The  World  of  created  Spirits  and  the  Conception  of 
format  Freedom 

The  ultimate  reason  of  the  creation  of  rational  beings, 
which  are  of  different  ranks,  and  include  human  souls, 
is  the  divine  goodness ;  God  desired  those  on  whom  He 
might  lavish  His  benefits.  Although  to  us  they  are 
innumerable,  the  number  of  these  intelligences  is  not 
infinite.  Called  into  existence  through  the  Son,  they 
are  in  reality  the  unfolding  of  the  fulness  that  dwells 
in  Him.  But  inasmuch  as  the  idea  of  createdness  was 
already  more  firmly  coupled  with  the  Holy  Ghost  than 
with  the  Son,  the  former  rather  than  the  latter  marks 
the  transition  to  the  inferior  spirits.  While,  however,  in 
the  graduated  series  of  spirits  which  represent  created 
reason  these  occupy  the  stage  next  to  Him,  there  is  never- 
theless between  them  and  the  Holy  Spirit  a  wide  gulf  of 
cleavage.  For  although  He  is  the  first  of  the  creatures, 
who  are  all  of  the  same  substance,  it  is  the  essential 
property  of  His  nature  to  be  good.  The  inferior  spirits, 
on  the  other  hand,  while  destined  for  the  highest  good, 
must  yet  reacli  it  through  their  own  free  choice. 

That  free  will  is  the  prerogative  of  all  moral  creatures 


II 


1 62     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

is  a  doctrine  oi"  cardinal  importance  in  the  .system  of 
Origan.  "  Every  rational  creature  is  capable  of  earning 
praise  or  blame — praise,  if,  in  conformity  to  tliat  reason 
whicli  it  possesses,  it  advance  to  better  things ;  blame, 
if  it  fall  away  from  the  right  course."  ^  It  is  as  much 
the  characteristic  mark  of  the  created  spirit  to  be  free, 
as  it  is  that  of  the  Deity  to  be  unchangeable.  Not 
that  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  liave  not  freedom, 
but  in  their  case,  as  in  that  of  the  Father,  freedom  and 
necessity  are  one.  It  belongs  essentially  to  their  nature 
constantly  to  embrace  and  hold  fast  the  good,  whereas 
the  lower  spirits,  having  only  a  capacity  for  the  highest 
good,  may  and  do  abandon  it,  and  must  regain  it 
through  renewed  effort. 

In  opposition  to  the  Gnostics,  who  held  by  the 
doctrine  of  absolute  predestination,  Origen  vigorously 
defends  his  theory  that  free  will  is  bound  up  witli 
reason,  and  is  the  possession  of  every  created  spirit. 
While  inanimate  things  such  as  wood  and  stone  are 
moved  from  without,  animals  and  plants  have  their 
motive  power  within  themselves.  But  in  the  case  of 
rational  beings  there  is,  further,  the  faculty  of  reason, 
which  enables  them  to  choose  good  or  evil.  Such 
freedom  implies  responsibility.  Those  who  possess  it 
are  not  the  lielpless  prey  of  external  influences.  One 
man,  for  example,  will  fall  before  some  particular 
temptation;  another  will  resist  it.  Some  rise  from 
vice  to  virtue,  others  fall  from  virtue  to  vice.  But  in 
either  case,  whether  there  be  a  transformation  for  the 
better,  or  a  process  of  degeneration  and  declension,  we 
are  to  trace  the  change  not  to  external  causes,  but  to 
tlie  decision  of  the  will. 

'  Br  Princ.  i.  r>.  2. 


ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY  163 

In  support  of  this  contention  Origcn  adduces  passages 
of  Scripture  wliicli  presuppose  the  freedom  of  the  luinian 
will,  and  place  clearly  before  men  for  their  deliberate 
choice  the  alternative  paths  of  life  and  deatli.^  Special 
stress  is  laid  upon  the  words  of  Jcsus,^  and  of  the 
Apostle  Paul.^  At  the  same  time  he  discusses  with 
great  minuteness  other  passages  which  seem  to  pre- 
clude the  idea  of  free  will,  and  which  were  therefore 
the  favourite  weapons  of  the  Gnostics.  The  mere  fact 
that  God  "  hardened  Pharaoh's  heart "  disproves  the 
assertion  that  his  was  a  ruined  nature  incapable  of 
salvation.  Turning  for  an  illustration  to  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  Origen  insists  that  just  as  the  same 
rain  makes  cultivated  ground  fruitful  and  leaves 
neglected  soil  barren,  so  "  by  one  operation  God  has 
mercy  upon  one  man  while  He  hardens  another, 
althous:!!  not  intendino-  to  harden."  The  hardeninof 
of  some  is  due  to  their  inherent  wickedness.  The 
same  sunshine  melts  wax  and  hardens  clay;  and  the 
same  divine  influence  that  hardened  Pharaoh  prevailed 
with  some  of  the  Egyj)tians  who  cast  in  their  lot 
with  the  Hebrews.  Many  bad  slaves  are  made  worse 
through  the  kindness  of  their  masters,  and  many 
sinners  are  hardened  through  their  contemptuous  dis- 
regard of  the  riches  of  God's  goodness.  It  may  also  be 
said  that  God  hardens  those  whom  He  abandons  for  . 
their  own  advantage,  reserving  the  cure  of  their  sin  , 
for  the  other  life,  as  a  wise  ph3^sician  who  knows  all, 
and  governs  souls  with  reference  to  the  future.  Again, 
changing  the  figure,  he  remarks  that  the  great  Husband- 
man, who  is  acquainted  with  the  seasons  and  the  nature 

^  Mic.  vi.  8  ;  Dent.  xxx.  15  f.,  etn. 

2  Matt.  V.  39,  vii.  26,  etc.  3  i|o,n_  ^i  4_io. 


i64     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

of  the  soil,  frequently  refrains  from  casting  the  seed  on 
rocky  ground,  where  it  would  spring  up  too  precipitately. 
Wlicn  this  docs  take  place  the  object  is  by  gratifying 
its  desire  to  lead  the  soul  subsequently  to  receive  the 
slower  husbandry  which  is  more  beneficial  for  it.  It 
is  not  ahva3\s  for  the  advantage  of  the  sick  to  be 
rapidly  cured,  and  in  bestowing  benefits  God  occasion- 
ally procrastinates  rather  than  communicate  things 
which,  when  seen  and  heard,  would  only  add  to  the 
sin  of  those  whom  even  such  peculiar  privileges  would 
fail  to  convince.  When  God  engages  to  substitute  for 
stony  hearts  the  heart  of  flesh,  the  promise  is  not  made 
without  reference  to  the  will  of  those  concerned ;  on 
-  the  contrary,  they  must  lend  their  co-operation  by 
^  voluntarily  submitting  themselves  to  His  power,  just 
as  an  ignorant  person  must  yield  himself  up  to  his 
instructor  to  bo  taught,  and  as  the  sick  were  cured 
only  by  coming  to  the  Saviour  to  be  healed.  When  it 
is  said  that  "  it  is  not  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God 
that  showeth  mercy,"  all  that  is  meant  to  be  conveyed 
is  that  God  does  far  more  for  our  salvation  than  we  do 
ourselves.  Althougli  it  is  God  that  saves  the  ship 
from  destruction,  it  is  not  brought  safe  to  port  without 
skilful  navigation  on  the  part  of  the  crew.  If  the 
apostle  speaks  of  God  as  "working  in  us  both  to  will 
and  to  do,"  this  is  simply  on  a  level  with  the  general 
statement  that  our  power  of  locomotion  is  from  God. 
It  merely  asserts  the  divine  origin  of  our  power  of 
volition  and  of  action ;  we  may  use  tliis  power  either 
in  a  good  or  an  evil  direction.  In  conclusion,  Origen 
discusses  the  difficult  passage  Rom.  ix.  18  fF.  Unless 
we  are  to  charge  the  apostle  with  self-contradiction, 
how  are  we   to  reconcile   his  censure  of  the  wicked 


ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY  165 

(2  Cor.  V.)  and  praise  of  tlie  virtuous  (2  Tim.  i.  IC  IK) 
with  the  view  that  according  to  him  it  is  the  fault  of 
the  Creator  that  one  vessel  is  in  honour  and  another  in 
dishonour?  Besides,  does  not  St.  Paul  himself  say 
that  "  if  a  man  purge  himself  ...  he  shall  be  a  vessel 
unto  honour,  sanctified,  and  meet  for  the  Master's  use  " 
(2  Tim.  ii  21),  thereby  referring  tlic  whole  back  to 
ourselves  ?  The  two  forms  of  statement  are  not  really 
contradictory ;  they  arc  the  opposite  poles  of  a  higher 
truth  which  we  must  extract  from  both. 

When  hard  pressed  by  his  opponents,  Origen  had 
always  a  seconcl  line  of  defence  to  fall  back  upon.     He 
fought  them  stoutly,  and  on  the  whole  successfully,  on 
the  scriptural  arena ;  but  he  could  retreat,  if  necessary, 
into  the  stronghold  afforded  by  a  doctrine  almost  as 
dear  to  him  as  that  of  free  will  itself — tlie  doctrine  of    ; 
the   pre-existence  of   the   soul.     That   one  vessel  has  j 
been  created  for  honour  and  another  for  dishonour  is    ' 
due  to  causes  antecedent  to  the  present  life. 

Origen  looks  on  everything  from  this  standpoint  of 
freedom ;  for  him  it  is  the  key  to  the  interpretation  of 
the  cosmos  as  it  exists.  We  have  already  seen  that  in 
his  system  human  souls  form  one  of  the  orders  com- 
posing the  category  of  created  spirits.  In  the  interest 
of  the  divine  omnipotence,  moreover,  it  is  necessary  to 
assume  that  the  whole  of  the  spirits  were  created  from 
all  eternity,  for  "  He  must  ahvays  have  had  those  over 
whom  He  exercised  power."  Otherwise  we  are  landed 
in  the  absurdity  of  reducing  the  Almighty  to  the  level 
of  a  finite  being  who  came  into  possession  of  them  by 
a  kind  of  progress.  God  created  all  tlie  spirits  equal 
and  alike,  because  there  was  in  Himself  no  reason  for 
producing  variety  and  diversity.     Viewed  with  respect 


1 66     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

to  their  origin,  they  arc  of  the  same  divine  substance, 
share  the  same  spiritual  light,  and  arc  innnortal  in 
essence.  That  some  have  advanced  through  imitation 
of  God,  while  others  have  failed  througli  negligence,  is 
due  to  the  freedom  of  the  individual  will  and  to  the 
dilierent  offices  assigned  to  them.  Although,  strictly 
speaking,  all  rational  natures  are  incorporeal,  yet  as 
liable  to  change,  and  as  finite  beings  who  have  been 
created,  they  are  weighted  with  a  kind  of  materiality, 
and  possess  from  the  first  a  body  or  envelope  suited  to 
their  environment.  This  is  true  alike  of  angels  and  of 
men.  Absolute  innnateriality  belongs  to  God  alone. 
It  is  further  noteworthy  that,  idealist  as  he  is,  Origcn 
confines  his  attention  to  the  actual  constitution  of  the 
spirit  world,  and  does  not  in  tl\e  least  concern  liimself 
with  the  question  as  to  what  would  have  been  the 
proper  development  for  all.  He  is  content  to  view 
them  in  their  existing  relations  and  diverse  conditions 
as  regulated  by  their  progress  in,  or  departure  from, 
goodness. 

In  the  matter  of  overcoming  evil  the  ability  botli  to 
will  and  to  do  is  the  gift  of  God ;  only  the  actual  clioice 
is  our  own.  As  the  will  to  embrace  the  good  is  thus 
due  to  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bestowed  in 
.  proportion  to  our  merit,  there  is  in  every  good  deed  of 
ours  a  commingling  of  our  own  choice  and  the  divine 
aid;  but  the  latter  plays  infinitely  the  greater  part. 
The  freedom  of  the  created  spirits  is  therefore  only 
relative,  and  amounts  to  no  more  than  the  power  of 
controlling  their  own  destiny  for  a  time.  It  is  on 
every  liand  condition(^d,  and  exists  only  within  very 
narrow  limits.  The  rational  creature  has  his  environ- 
ment given  to  him  ;  it  is  beyond  his  power  to  command 


ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY  167 

the  success  of  his  own  action ;  and  even  the  decision  to 
act  is  dependent  upon  earlier  decisions.  After  these 
deductions  are  made,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  all 
rational  existence  niu.st  ultimately  find  its  goal  in  God 
Himself,  what  is  there  left  to  the  province  of  free 
determination  ?  What  appears  as  freedom  is  in  reality 
nothing  else  than  the  necessary  evolution  of  the  created 
spirit.  Origen  refrains,  however,  from  drawing  this 
inference  himself.  For  him  freedom  means  unfettered 
liberty  of  choice,  the  unconditioned  possibility  of 
descending  from  the  higher  to  the  lower,  and  of  again 
ascending  to  the  good;  and  it  means  no  more.  His 
conception  of  freedom  is  limited  to  this  its  purely 
formal  side,  no  account  being  taken  of  what  lies  beyond 
the  mere  act  of  choosing,  namely,  the  attainment  of 
the  good,  and  the  consummation  of  freedom  in  the 
onward  progress  of  the  being.  What  escapes  him  is 
that  freedom  is  essentially  free  devotion  to  the  good, 
which,  originating  in  freedom  of  choice,  afterwards 
becomes  an  inalienable  spiritual  possession.  Origen 
indeed  ascribes  to  God  a  higher  freedom  than  mere 
liberty  of  choice ;  but  the  constant  necessity  of  dealing 
with  Gnostic  and  Neoplatonic  denials  of  freedom 
apparently  prevdited  him  from  perceiving  that  for  the 
created  spirit  free  will  is  only  a  stepping-stone  towards 
that  higher  freedom  which  consists  in  voluntary 
fdhesion  to  the  divine  law  and  tlie  consequent  normal 
development  of  the  being.  Owing  to  this  inadequate 
conception  of  freedom,  "  religious  histor}^  l^ccomes,  in 
the  system  of  Origen,  a  drama  without  a  conclusion, 
wliich  is  perpetually  recommencing,  and,  as  it  were, 
repeating  itself."  ^  This  defect  is,  however,  in  some 
'  Pressens^,  The  Early  Years  of  Christianity,  iii.  p.  314. 


i68     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

degree  atoned  for  by  the  lofty  morale  pervading  the 
view  of  the  world  M'itli  which  it  is  associated. 

ii.  The  Fall  and  the  Creation  of  the  material  World 

In  Origen's  view  the  Fall  was  premnndane ;  it  took 
place  before  time  began.  The  possession  of  fi'ee  will 
made  it  possible  for  rational  creatures  either  to  advance 
to  the  point  of  attaining  divine  wisdom  or  to  become 
involved  in  wickedness.     When  the  good  that  was  in 

*  them  potentially  becomes  their  own  they  reach  perfec- 
tion, and  give  place  to  a  succession  of  worlds  which 
serve  as  scenes  of  discipline  for  those  who  stand  in  need 
of  it.  For  not  all  created  spiiits  have  chosen  the  path 
of  virtue.  In  some  cases  "  slothfulness  and  a  dislike  of 
labour  in  preserving  what  is  good,  and  an  aversion  to, 
and  a  nco'lect  of,  better  thing's,  furnished  the  beginning 
of  a  departure  fr©m  goodness,"  and  the  lack  of  good- 
ness is  positive  wickedness.  Their  sin,  which  assumed 
a  multiplicity  of  forms,  in  every  case  involved  a 
diminution  of  true  being,  which  is  one  with  the  good. 

-  Where  the  movements  of  souls  are  wrongly  conducted, 
the  power  implanted  in  their  substance  by  the  good- 
ness of  their  Maker  disappears;  it  was  not  their  own 
originally,  and  may  be  taken  from  them  as  it  was  given 
to  them. 

It  was  with  a  view  to  the  purification  of  the  fallen 
spirits  that  God  created  the  visible  world.  What  we 
are  accustomed  to  regaixl  as  the  creation  of  the  world 
is  thus,  in  Oi'igen's  conception,  not  the  conniicncement, 

^  but  an  intermediate  stage  of  sj)iiitual  history.  It  is  the 
result  of  occurrences  prior  to  the  existence  of  the  earth, 
which  is  both  a  place  of  punishment  and  a  house  of 


ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY  169 

correction.  Lii'o  on  eartli  is  tlic  continuation  oi'  an 
antecedent  existence.  Our  present  lot  is  the  logical 
and  moral  consequence  of  our  conduct  in  a  prior  state. 
The  diversitj^  that  is  in  the  world  is  due  to  the  varying 
de<rrecs  in  which  rational  beings  have  fallen  from  the 
jirimal  unity  in  which  they  were  at  first  created  by 
Uod.  Hence  the  difterent  orders  and  ranks  of  angels  ; 
hence  the  inequalities  among  men.  If  one  man  is  born 
to  the  life  of  an  uncivilised  savage,  another  to  tlie 
enjoyments  of  learning  and  the  fine  arts,  and  another 
to  the  privileges  of  Christian  fellowship,  this  nmst  be 
regarded  as  the  result  of  their  own  individual  previous - 
choice,  and  not,  as  the  Gnostics  maintained,  of  pre- 
destination. Every  man's  earthly  circumstances  are  to 
be  interpreted  as  a  judgment  passed  upon  his  behaviour 
in  a  pre-existent  state. 

The  most  immediate  consequence  of  the  Fall  was 
corporeal  being.  In  order  to  give  external  shape  to 
moral  decisions,  God  created  matter  as  a  mobile  sub-- 
stance  capable  of  undergoing  all  manner  of  trans-, 
formations,  and  thus  of  ser\ing  as  a  shroud  to  the  soul, 
whatever  may  have  been  the  extent  of  its  rebellion. 
As  the  servant  of  angelic  beings  it  sliines  in  celestial 
splendour ;  when  di-agged  down  to  furnisli  the  habitat 
of  beinos  of  a  lower  order  it  assumes  a  grosser  form. 
No  longer  harmoniously  united  in  God,  the  spirits 
diverge  from  one  another  upon  the  assumption  of  their 
material  garb,  which,  owing  to  its  infinite  adaptability 
as  the  outward  expression  of  the  manifold  tendencies  of 
the  spiritual  nature,  becomes  a  veritable  "  coat  of  many 
colours."  Those  who  steadfastly  adhered  to  that  which 
is  good  have  obtained  the  rank  of  angels,  and  inhabit- 
the  ethereal  bodies  of  the  stars.     Their  exact  place  in 


I/O     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

the  heavenly  hierarchy  of  "gods,"  thrones,  dominions, 

principalities,  and  powers,  has  been  determined  by  their 

own  quality  and  merit.     Those  who  have  utterly  fallen 

"^  away  from  God  and  goodness  have  become  demons, 

with  a  passionate  thirst  for  evil.     These  have  had  their 

glory  turned  into  dust,  and  exist  in  hideously  ugly, 

though  invisible,  dark  bodies.^     In  addition  to  these 

good   and   evil  powers  the  spirit  world    includes    the 

.  intermediate  and  probationary  class  of  human  beings. 

Deeply  as  men  have  fallen  from  their  primal  state  of 

blessedness,  the)''  have  not  sunk  so  low  as  the  malignant 

demons ;  the  love  of  God  has  not  in  man's  case  been 

wholly  quenched.     It  has,   however,   become  cold ;  to 

^  use  Origen's  own  expression,  the  spirit  has  "  cooled " 

-  into   a  soul.     The  moral  cliaracter  of  "souls"  varies 

accordincf  to  the  dewee  in  which  tlie  lower  or  higher 

nature  gains  the  upper  hand ;  yet  all  souls  are  at  least 

capable   of  being  restored  through  chastisement  to  a 

condition  of  perfect  spirituality. 

Although  they  differ  vastly  from  each  other  in  their 
mental  conformation  and  in  their  motives,  God  by  His 
ineffable  wisdom  has  contrived  that  the  various  purposes 
^  of  the  creatures  shall  be  usefully  adapted  to  the 
'  harmony  of  one  world,  and  that  their  collective  activity 
shall  make  for  one  end  of  perfection.  That  every  spirit 
shall  be  free  to  take  his  own  course,  and  tliat  while 
some,  for  example,  should  need  help,  others  should  be 
in  a  position  to  give  it,  is  the  deliberate  arrangement 
of  God  with  a  view  to  ensuring  the  salvation  of  all 

^  Cf.    what  Dante  says  of  those   toil-worn   souls  whose  avarice  has 
landed  tluiu  in  hell  — 

"That  iguol.le  life 
Which  made  them  vile  before,  now  makes  them  dark. 
And  to  all  knowledge  indiscernible." — {Inferno,  vii.  53-55.) 


ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY  171 

His  creatures.  In  spite  of  its  \'aricd  complexion,  the 
condition  ot"  the  world  is  not  one  oi"  internal  discord ; 
rather  is  it  like  "some  luio-c  animal  kept  toc^etlier  by 
the  power  and  reason  of  God  as  by  one  soul."  On  the 
other  hand,  however,  tliis  vast  and  orderly  creation 
docs  participate  in  the  misery  attendant  upon  sin ; 
"  the  wliole  creation  groanetli  and  travaileth  together 
in  pain  until  now."  The  heavenly  bodies  and  the 
angels  ol"  God  must  act  perforce  as  ministering  spirits  to 
man,  being  thus  made  subject  to  vanity  "not  willingly, 
but  by  reason  of  Him  who  hath  subjected  the  same  in 
hope,"  namely,  of  "  tlie  manifestation  of  the  sons  of 
God."  The  far-reaching  evil  of  sin  is  further  evidenced 
by  the  fact  tliat  the  glory  of  the  Saviour  Himself  is  - 
not  perfect  witliout  His  people,  for  whom  He  waits  in  ' 
order  to  "  drink  wine  "  in  the  kingdom  of  God, 

iii.  Tlic  Doctrine  of  Man 

Jerome   wrongly  charges  Origen  with    holding  the 
doctrine  of  tl\e  transmigration  of  the  soul   from  one 
human  body  into  another,  or  even  into  the  body  of  a 
beast.      But  if  at  this  point  the  Christian  theologian  of 
Alexandria  severs  himself  from  Platonism,  he  certainly 
puts  himself  in  line  with  it  on  the  question  of  the  soul's 
pre-existence.     This  latter  doctrine  forms  an  integral 
part  of  his  pliilosophical  system.     He  does  not,  like    •*-  /• 
many  of  the  early  Fathers,  regard  man  as  virtually  the 
sole  end  of  creation,  but  constantly  assumes  that  he  is  — 
merely  one  factor  in  the  general  world  of  spirits.^      So  ~ 
essential   is  the  belief   in   pre-existence  to   his   whole 
theory  of  the  universe  that  he   is  not  even   careful, 
^  This  is  quite  consistent  with  his  reply  to  Celsus, 


172     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

either  by  means  of  Plato's  expedient  of  partial  recollec- 
tion or  otherwise,  to  offer  an  explanation  of  the  lack 
of  any  connecting  link  in  consciousness  between  the 
present  and  the  former  life.  By  the  position  he  takes 
up  wit] I  reference  to  the  pre-existcnce  of  souls  he  of 
course  ranks  -himself  as  an  opponent  of  both  the 
creationist  and  traducian  theories  as  to  tlie  origin  of 
the  human  soul. 

In  his  psychology  Origen  adopts  the  Platonic  and 
Pauline  doctrine  of  trichotomy.  The  constitution  of 
man  is  threefold,  consisting  of  spirit,  soul  {-^^vyj,  amiina), 
and  body.  Of  these  elements  of  human  nature  the 
highest  is  tlic  spirit,  wliich  has  descended  from  the 
upper  world,  and  is  joined  to  the  body  through  the 
medium  of  tlie  animal  soul.  The  soul  thus  stands 
midway,  so  to  speak,  between  the  weak  flesh  and  the 
willing  spirit,  and  constitutes  the  peculiar  individualitj'- 
of  tlie  man.  To  Origen  this  triple  division  of  man's 
constitution  is  necessary  in  order  to  account  for  our 
antagonism  to  God,  which  can  be  traced  neither  to  a 
purely  pliysical  cause,  nor  to  the  rational  spirit,  which 
must  remain  intact.  This  is  scarcely  in  keeping,  how- 
ever, witli  what  Origen  says  about  the  spirit  in  man 
having  been  "chilled"  or  transformed  into  a  soul. 
Such  a  process  involves  a  certain  measure  of  defection 
from  God,  and  where  this  takes  place  tlie  integrity  of 
the  rational  spirit  must  necessarily  be  impaired.  Nor 
is  his  fanciful  derivation  of  the  Greek  name  for  soul 
from  a  verb  signifying  to  w^ax  cold,  and  his  consequent 
description  of  tluj  soul  as  dixorced  from  the  divine  fire, 
easily  reconcilable  witli  his  statements  regarding  the 
sinless  soul  of  Josus.  In  fact  "the  soul  is  treated  just 
as   inconsistently  as  the  Logos :  it  is  a  spirit  grown 


ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY  173 

cold,  and  yet  no  spirit."  ^  It  is,  however,  only  fair  to 
say  tliat  Origen  particularly  disclaims  doo-matisni  with 
reference  to  the  conversion  of  the  understanding  into  a 
soul,  and  the  different  degrees  in  which  in  different 
instances  the  intelligence  is  thus  sensualised.  These 
and  other  kindred  matters  he  brings  forward,  lie  says, 
"  as  topics  of  discussion  for  our  readers." 

The  fallen  human  spirit  still  retains  its  freedom,  and 
has  not  lost  the  power  of  restoring  itself  to  its  former 
condition.  By  our  culpable  descent  to  this  world,  how- 
ever, we  form  part  of  a  system  of  things  which  in- 
evitably affects  us  for  good  or  for  evil.  To  this  extent 
Origen  felt  with  Tennyson  that 

"The  indiviihial  -withers,  and  llic  worhl  is  more  and  more." 

The  individual  cannot  entirely  dissociate  himself  from 
humanity  in  the  aggTegate.  Between  parents  and 
cliildren  there  is  a  subtle  spiritual  affinity  of  such  a 
kind  that  all  who  ai'e  born  into  the  world  are  "  not 
only  the  sons,  but  the  disciples  of  sinners."  Yet  there 
remains  in  fallen  man  a  spark  of  tlie  divine,  a  germ 
of  goodness  through  tlic  development  of  which  he 
may  rise  not  only  to  the  level  of  the  angels,  but  even 
to  complete  likeness  to  God  Himself.  According  to 
Origen,  "  the  image  of  God  "  stamped  upon  man  at  his 
creation  guarantees  to  him  the  possibility  of  attaining 
to  perfection  ;  but  the  perfect  realisation  of  the  divine 
"  likeness  "  is  reached  only  through  the  exercise  of  his 
own  diligence  in  the  imitation  of  God. 

In  his  intermediate  position  between  the  angels  and 
the  demons  man  is  constantly  subjected  to  two  cross- 
winds  of  inspiration  and  impulse.     His  present  position 
^  Haruack,  Outlines  of  (he  History  of  Dogma,  p.  161. 


174     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

is  thcrei'orc  one  of  severe  mental  and  moral  conflict. 
The  liostile  powers  of  evil,  with  Satan  at  their  head, 
instigate  him  to  sin.  Saints  have  to  "  wrestle  not 
against  flesh  and  blood,  but  against  principalities, 
against  powers,"  etc.  On  the  other  hand,  they  are 
assisted  by  the  angels  of  God,  who  are  stationed  over 
the  way  of  light  as  are  the  angels  of  Satan  over  the 
way  of  darkness.^  Everyone  has  his  good  angel  who 
incites  him  to  well-doing,  and  his  evil  angel  who 
lures  him  on  to  wickedness.^  We  may  resist  the  evil 
suggestion,  and  we  may  disobey  tlie  divine  call  to 
better  things.  Under  every  temptation  we  liave  the 
necessary  power  to  enable  us  to  overcome  it.  If  we 
choose  to  exercise  it  cUligently  we  shall  conquer,  but  if 
we  use  it  slothfully  we  are  defeated.  All  depends  upon 
the  use  we  make  of  our  faculty  of  free  will.  Victory 
consists  in  the  due  mastery  of  the  passions,  in  keeping 
them,  that  is,  within  the  natural  bounds  of  moderation, 
and  in  free  devotion  to  the  good.  It  is  achieved  througli 
prayer,  which  weakens  the  influence  of  the  demons. 
God  is  "  the  just  president  "  of  the  struggle,  and  nothing 
that  befalls  us  happens  without  His  permission,  or  even 
in  the  last  resort  apart  from  His  providential  guidance, 
tliough  the  latter  is,  of  course,  exercised  subject  to  the 
liberty  we  possess. 

Origen's  conception  of  sin  is  dominated  on  the  one 
hand  by  the  doctrine  of  pre-existence,  and  on  the  other 
by  tliat  of  free  will.  Tlie  first  establishes  the  fact,  the 
second  the  guilt,  of  sin.  Already  in  its  former  state 
the  human  soul  was  stained  witli  sin,  so  that  it  enters 
upon  terrestrial  life  in  a  sinful  condition.     Sin  is  in- 

'  Ejiistle  of  Barnabas,  chap,  xviii. 
-  Shepherd  of  Ilermas,  Com.  vi.  2. 


ORIGEN'S  THEOLOGY  175 

separable  from  man's  wliole  earthly  enviroiuiK-nt ;  it  is 
the  inevitable  shadow    east  upon  the  spirit  that  has  - 
wandered   from   its   source.     Ori^'en    appears   to    have 
been   satislied    witli    this    view    of    the    case    until    in 
Csesarea  he  encountered  the  practice  of  infant  baptism, 
with  its  manifest  bearing  upon  the  question  of  original 
sin.     This  led  him  further  to  conclude  that  there  is  a 
certain  hereditarj^  pollution  attaching  to  all  tlie  children 
of  Adam.     "  Spermatic  germs "  of  good  and  evil  are 
inherent  from  tlie  first  in  every   human   being.     The 
narrative   of   the    Fall    in    Genesis  he    interprets  alle- 
gorically   as   a   delineation   of   the    defection    of   the 
entire  human  race.     Adam  is  the  type  of  moral  agents 
generally.      But  though  Orio-en  thus  regards  the  sin  of     *) 
all  men  as  inherited  from  tl^ir  first  father,  he  by  no    ', 
means  accepts  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity.      Man  is 
moved  by  noble  impulses  which  are  the  fruit  of  long 
latent  germs  of  good.     He  has  an  innate  disposition 
not  only  towards  the  lower  realm  of  things  that  appeal 
to  the  senses,  but  also  towards  the  divine,  eternal,  and 
invisible.     In  other  words,  he  has  a  conscience,  whicli  - 
is   virtually  a   reminiscence   of   a   former   and   better  , 
existence.     This  is  the  peculiarly  spiritual  element  in  | 
man,  and  is  directly  related  to  tlie  Spirit  of  God.     It  is,  ) 
in  short,  the  law  of  God  written  upon  the  heart. 

The  guilt  of  sin  is  bound  up  with  the  idea  of  freedom. 
Even  .since  the  Fall  man  might  have  concpiered  evil, 
but  he  has  chosen  to  listen  to  the  solicitations  of  the 
demons  until  to  his  original  sin  there  has  been  added  w 
much  actual  transgression.  Not  that  the  body,  altliough 
the  result  of  the  Fall,  is  in  its  nature  impure.  The 
devil  is  not  the  cause  of  our  natural  appetites.  For 
instance,  concupiscence  is  not  in  itself  sinful ;  guilt  is 


176     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

contracted  only  when  we  yield  to  it.  In  \iew,  how- 
ever, of  unr  lleshly  constitution,  wliicli  renders  evil 
inevitable,  and  in  view  of  the  error  inseparable  from 
temporary  wrong  development,  our  freedom  is  to  a 
*  large  extent  illusory.  No  man  can  be  sinless.  In 
Adam  all  sin,  just  as  in  Adam  all  die.  Moral  evil  does 
not  originate  in  God,  although  in  His  government  of 
the  world  it  is  made  subservient  to  the  good ;  nor  does 
it  spring  from  matter,  which  is  consequent  upon  sin ;  it 
^  has  its  source  in  the  freedom  of  the  created  spirit, 
^'that  is,  not  in  freedom  itself,  but  in  the  free  act  of 
declension  from  God.  Origen  conceives  it,  however, 
as  something  negative ;  in  its  essence  it  is  neither  real 
nor  eternal.  It  is  the  opposite  of  true  being,  which  is 
one  with  the  good.  With  God's  aid  evil  is  not  in- 
vincible. In  point  of  fact  Origen  believes  strongly 
in  the  ultimate  complete  triumph  of  the  good.  The 
rebellious  spirits  must  therefore  return  to  God,  the 
devil  himself  not  excepted.  When  this  consummation 
is  reached,  the  present  material  world  will  come  to 
an  end. 


CHAPTER    VIII 

Origen's  Theology:  Redemption  and  Restoration 

In  the  matter  of  salvation  Origeii  insists  upon  the 
necessity  of  the  utmost  moral  cftbrt  on  tlic  part  of  the 
individual  spirit.  But  in  %icw  of  the  extent  to  which, 
through  our  own  fault,  the  powers  of  evil  have 
gradually  tightened  their  grip  upon  us,  he  is  equally 
explicit  in  affirming  the  necessity  of  divine  help  being 
extended  to  us  on  a  grander  scale  even  than  that  im- 
plied in  the  assistance  of  all  the  good  powers,  if  we  are 
to  be  delivered  from  Satan's  thraldom  and  restored  to 
a  state  of  perfection.  God  Himself  must  come  to  our 
help.  Thus  no  human  cfibrt  can  save  apart  from 
divine  grace. 

i.  Tlte  Four  Revelations 

Ever  since  the  Fall  God  lias  been  rendering  help 
through  the  medium  of  a  manifold  and  progressive 
revelation.  To  begin  with.  He  has  placed  us  under  the 
tuition  of  the  natural  law  of  conscience,  which  is  bind- 
ing upon  all  rational  creatures,  angels  and  sidereal 
spirits,  equally  with  men,  being  subject  to  its  sway. 
No  man  has  perfectly  kept  this  law ;  "  there  is  none 
that  doeth  good ;  no,  not  one,"    Yet  where,  through  the 


178     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

cultivation  of  the  ray  ol'  liglit  tlins  implanted  in  the 
lunnan  spirit,  sometliing  has  been  accomplisliod  in  tliis 
direction,  men  shall  not  go  altogether  unrewarded. 
Philosophy,  however,  is  no  passport  to  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  from  which  the  pagan  is  shut  out  because  he 
does  not  believe  in  Christ,  and  is  not  born  again  of 
water  and  the  Spirit.^  Elsewhere,  it  must  be  said, 
Origen  speaks  with  more  licsitancy.  What  he  clearly 
says  is  that  the  natural  light  of  reason,  implanted  by 
the  Word,  is  insufficient. 

The  next  stage  in  the  onward  march  of  revelation 
for  the  relief  of  the  fallen  spirit  is  that  reached  in  the 
law  and  the  prophets.  Through  the  precepts  and 
sacrificial  sj^stem  of  the  Mosaic  law  the  power  of  sin 
received  a  distinct  check.  Yet  it  was  only  a  shadoNv 
of  better  things  to  come,  the  clay  model  as  it  were  of 
the  future  bronze  figure,  the  sclioolmaster  whose  train- 
ing smooths  the  way  for  the  reception  of  more  perfect 
principles.  Even  when  supplemented  by  prophecy,  it 
cannot  concpicr  sin  and  error.  The  prophets  were  pure 
spirits  whose  bodily  nature  was  not  the  result  of  their 
own  declension  from  God.  Although  clotlied  in  mortal 
flesh,  they  were  sent  by  tlie  Word  to  minister  to  men 
battling  with  temptation,  and  to  shed  upon  their  moral 
darkness  some  rays  of  celestial  liglit.  Their  mission 
was  confined  to  a  selected  nation,  so  tliat  it  might 
become  the  centre  from  mIucIi  the  salvation  of  God 
should  go  forth  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  But  these 
measures  still  proved  inadequate. 

The  liglit  of  conscience  and  the  force  of  law  having 
failed  to  bring  back  the  fallen  spirits  to  the  divine  life, 
the  Word  Himself  had  to  appear  in  order  that  this  end 
'  III  Rom.  ii.  7. 


REDEMPTION   AND  RESTORATION      179 

might  be  achieved.  Hence  the  humiliation  of  the  only- 
begotten  Son.  Althongli  man  could  not  rise,  He  could 
stoop.  The  Word  and  Wisdom  of  the  Father  assumed 
tlic  form  of  a  servant  in  order  that  by  His  obedience 
unto  death  He  might  teach  the  art  of  free  obedience  to 
those  for  whom  there  is  no  other  road  to  blessedness. 
This  is  the  fuller  revelation  of  the  gospel — a  revelation 
adapted  to  the  various  needs  of  the  different  orders 
of  rational  creatures,  from  the  highest  angel  down 
to  the  lowest  demon.  To  all  men  burdened  with  this 
corporeal  nature  tl\e  Word  has  at  length  visibly 
appeared  to  bestow  upon  them  redemption  and  eternal 
blessedness  according  to  the  measure  of  their  recep- 
tivity. The  two  factors  in  our  justification  are  our 
faith  and  Christ's  blood ;  "  of  the  two,  however,  it  is 
much  more  the  blood  of  Christ  than  our  faith  that 
justifies."  ^ 

Even  this  is  not  the  final  revelation  of  God  to  men. 
The  gospel  is  related  to  the  perfect  truth  as  the  Old 
Testament  to  the  New,  or  as  the  legislation  of 
Deuteronomy  to  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch.  It  is 
only  the  shadow  of  the  realities  to  be  ushered  in  after 
our  a3on  has  run  its  course.  Temporary  and  mutable, 
it  awaits  its  full  unveiling  through  the  second  advent 
of  Christ.  Then  it  will  resolve  itself  into  the  eternal 
gospel,  which  as  the  complete  revelation  of  the  divine 
purposes  has  "no  outer  shell  and  no  representation." 
This  eternal  gospel  lies  concealed  in  Scripture,  although 
to  some  extent  it  is  discernible  to  the  reader  who  can 
understand  the  mystic  sense.  It  is  the  help  aflbrded 
to  the  perfect,  and  in  heaven  the  saints  shall  live 
according  to  its  laws. 

^  In  Mom.  V.  8  f. 


1 80     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

ii.  TJlc  Incarnation 

To  Origen's  mind  tlie  wonder  of  wondtTs  is  that  the 
very  Word  and  Wisdom  of  God  should  liave  existed 
within  the  frame  of  that  Man  who  appeared  in  Judcea, 
should  have  been  born  and  uttered  cries  as  an  infant, 
should  have  sorrowed,  died,  and  risen  again.  The 
combination  in  Him  of  (pialities  so  human  and  so 
divine  baffles  the  understanding.  If  we  think  of  a 
God,  we  see  a  mortal;  if  of  a  man,  we  behold  Him 
returning  from  the  grave  laden  with  tlie  spoils  of 
vau(]uished  death.  Indeed  this  is  a  mystery  the  ex- 
planation of  which  is  perhaps  hidden  from  even  tlie 
celestial  powers.     In  speaking  of  it  therefore  Origen  is 

'  careful  to  state  that  he  is  not  dogmatising,  but  only 
surmising. 

A  true-liearted  Christian,  Origen  loyally  accepts  this 
fundamental  doctrine  of  the  gospel ;  he  is  deeply 
touched  with  the  love  of  the  Saviour  who  "  abased 
Himself  ...  in  order  to  benefit  our  race."  Viewed 
in  itself,  moreover,  and  a2)art  from  his  system,  his 
teaching  upon  tlie  Incarnation  takes  rank  with  his 
best  work.  In  this  connection  he  may  even  be  said 
to  have  rendered  special  service,  for  never  until  he  did 
so,  tlu-ougli  an  able  analysis  of  its  constituent  parts, 
had  the  completeness  of  the  human  nature  of  the 
Redeemer  been  adequately  set  forth.     But  obviously 

-  the  dogma  of  the  Incarnation  does  not  fit  well  into  his 
speculative  system,  one  of  the  root  principles  of  which 

»    is  the  immutability  of  the  divine  life.     Upon  such  a 

V  presupposition  the  Word  could  neither  suffer  nor  die. 
Besides  as  pure  spirit  He  could  not  unite  Himself 
directly   with   sin  -  tainted   corporeal    nature.      These 


REDEMPTION   AND  RESTORATION      i8i 

apparent  contradictions  Origen  tries  to  solve  by  means 
of  his  ingenious  doctrine  of  tlie  intermediary  human* 
soul  of  Jesus.     It  was  with  this  soul,  which  was  alike 
capable  of  assuming  a  body  and  of  receiving  God,  that 
the  Word  united  Himself :    His  union  with  the  body 
existed  only  in  so  far  as  it  was  mediated  through  the  ^ 
soul.     In  thus  indicating  the  metaphysical  basis  of  this 
redemptive   union   with   the  Word,  Origen  makes  it 
clear  that  the  soul  chosen  for  this  honour  was  one  - 
that  had  never  fallen  away  from  God  or  ceased  to  live  ^ 
in  closest  fellowship  with  the  Word.     Not  that  the 
soul  of  Jesus  was  in  any   respect  different  from  all 
other  human  souls ;  but  in  the  exercise  of  its  freedom 
it  elected  to  love  lighteousness,  and  that  with  such 
ardour  as  to  destroy  all  susceptibility  for  change.     It 
was  thus  raised  beyond  the  possibility  of  sin;   from 
being  a  fact  its  sinlessness  became  a  necessity.     The  ^ 
Logos,  however,  did  not  so  dwell  in  the  soul  and  body-y 
of  Christ  as  to  preclude   his  operation  on  other   re-/ 
ceptive  souls  according  to  their  merit ;  on  the  contrary. 
His  action  continued  to  be  as  widespread  as  before. 
But  in  no  case  was  the  union  so  close  as  in  that  of  ' 
Jesus.      The  various  functions  and  attributes  of  the 
Word  made  flesh  are  presented  by  Origen  as  a  flight 
of  steps,  so  to  speak,  which  the  Christian  ascends  as 
his  knowledge  increases.    But  here  too  the  ideal  ethical 
union  is  that  between  the  Word  and  the  human  soul  of 
Jesus.     Through  the  immensity  of  its  love  the  latter 
was  so  closely  joined  to  God  as  to  be  of  one  spirit 
with    Him.      Using   an   illustration   of   epoch-making- 
importance  in  the  history  of  dogma,  Origen  compares  - 
the  union  of  the  two  to  a  mass  of  redhot  iron.     The^ 
soul  lies  perpetually  in  the  Word,  the  humanity  in  the  ' 


1 82      ORIGEN   AND   GREEK  THEOLOGY 

divinity,  as  iron  in  the  fire.  As  tlic  niclal  is  capable 
of  cold  and  heat,  so  is  the  soul  capable  of  deification ; 
the  soul  of  Christ  is  completely  transfused  with  the 
divine  fire  ;  "  in  all  that  it  does,  feels,  and  understands," 
it  is  God,  and  that  imnuitably.  Accordinoly,  in  Scrip- 
ture the  human  nature  is  frequently  spoken  of  in  terms 
of  the  divine,  and  vice  versa.  Real  and  intimate  as 
this  union  is,  however,  it  does  not  amount  to  actual 
-  intermingling  of  the  soul  and  the  Word ;  rather  does 
the  former  cleave  inseparably  to  the  latter  by  a  con- 
stant exercise  of  will. 

Although  tlie  Alexandrian  theologians  rejected 
Docetism  in  its  grosser  forms,  tlierc  is  nevertheless  a 
certain  Docetic  tinge  about  their  views  regarding  the 
Lord's  body.  Clement  especially  comes  very  near  to 
divesting  it  of  all  reality.  According  to  him  the  body 
of  Jesus,  being  sustained  by  a  divine  power,  retjuired  no 
food.  It  was  also  impervious  to  pain.  Ilis  doctrine  of 
the  human  soul  of  Christ  enaljled  Origen  to  ascribe  to 
it  tlie  sensations  incidental  to  bodil}"  existence,  and 
to  maintain  the  impassibility  of  the  Logos.  Jesus 
really  hungered  and  thirsted,  was  tired  and  slept,  ex- 
-perienced  sorrow  and  suffering;  but  these  sensations 

-  were  confined  to  the  soul  and  the  body,  which  were 
-both  truly  human.      Yet  through  its  intimate  union 

-  with  the  divine  the  body  of  Jesus  had  a  special 
character  of  its  own.  Not  only  was  it  pure  and  un- 
defiled,  as  the  offspring  of  a  virgin  conceived  by  "the 
Holy  Ghost;  throiigli  the  will  of  the  Logos  acting 
upon  matter,  wliicli  is  essentially  mobile,  it  also 
possessed  the  property  of  assuming  the  particular 
f(jnn   most  calculated  to  impress  the  beholder.     That 

"^  Jesus    appeared    thus    in    different   forms  to   ditl'erent 


REDEMPTION   AND   RESTORATION      183 

persons,  according  to  the  measure  of  their  ability  to 
receive  llini,  is  sliown  by  the  exclusion  i'rom  the  Mount 
of  Transfiguration  of  all  His  apostles  except  the  three 
who  were  alone  fit  to  behold  His  glorification.  He  had 
one  aspect  to  the  sick,  another  to  tlic  strong  who 
followed  Him  up  the  mountain  slope  where  He  taught 
them  the  Beatitudes.  To  some  He  was  without  form 
or  comeliness,  but  for  others  the  divine  beauty  shone 
through  the  material  frame.  At  Gethsemane  it  needed 
the  traitor's  kiss  to  disclose  Him  to  the  insusceptible 
crowd.  It  is  thus  evident  that  Origen's  view  of  matter  *■ 
as  a  changing  substance  qualifies  to  some  extent  his- 
admission  of  the  reality  of  Christ's  body.  On  this 
account  it  has  even  been  said  that  "  the  incarnation,  as 
he  represents  it,  is  more  nearly  allied  to  the  religion  of 
India  than  to  that  of  the  apostles."  ^ 

It  was  further  held  by  Origen  that  during  Christ's 
earthly  life  there  took  place  a  gradual  glorification  of  f^ 
the  soul  by  the  Logos,  and  of  the  body  l^y  the  soul,  so  -^ 
that  from  this  standpoint  also  the  body  of  Jesus  had 
no  stereotyped   form  even  prior  to  the   resurrection. 
After  that  event,  which   was  a  reality  and   no  mere 
appearance,   it   was   a   uniformly   glorified  body,  and 
became  more  and  more  glorified  until  it  reached  the 
point  of  complete  volatilisation.     This  explains  why  he 
showed  Himself  alive  after  His  passion  only  to  the 
disciples ;    there  was  no  longer  about  Him  anything  _, 
Avhich  the  unenlightened  could  see.^     Transformed  at 
length  into  pure  spirit,  and  received  into  the  Godhead, 
He  is  no  longer  man,  but  is  identical  with  the  Word. 

In  building  up  his  theory  of  the  incarnation  Origen 

'  Piessensd,  The  Early  Vuars  of  Christianity,  iii.  p.  327. 
^  Contra  Cclsiivi,  ii.  G4, 


1 84     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

makes  use  of  material  gathered  i'rom  sundry  sources. 
Indeed,  with  the  single  exception  of  "  modalism,"  it  is 
hardly  too  much  to  say  that  "  all  conceivable  heresies 
are  here  touched  upon,  but  guarded  by  cautions."  ^ 
Apart  from  the  Docetic  element  already  alluded  to, 
perhaps  the  most  notable  blemishes  in  Origen's  theory 
are  its  vacillation  between  a  personal  and  an  im- 
personal Logos,  its  virtual  subversion  of  the  reality  of 
the  union  of  the  Word  with  humanity  (seeing  that 
according  to  his  own  system  the  perfect  soul  of  Jesus 
cannot  be  a  human  soul  at  all),  its  semi-dualistic  con- 
ception of  the  Redeemer's  person,  and  its  suggestion 
that  human  nature  is  but  a  temporary  garb,  and  not 
destined  for  eternal  glorification.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  great  merit  of  Origen's  conception  is  that  Avithin 
the  framework  of  a  scientific  Christology  an  ample 
place  is  found  for  the  humanity  alongside  of  a  full 
recognition  of  the  divine  nature  and  personality  of  the 
Word.  Thus  at  length  the  human  nature  came  to  its 
rights,  and  the  idea  of  the  incarnation  was  really 
accepted. 

Origen  was  the  first  to  use  the  term  God-Man.  In 
striking  out  this  bold  expression  he  sought  to  indicate 
the  value  of  Christ's  person,  not  only  as  the  revelation 
in  bodily  form  of  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead,  but  also 
as  showing  the  possibility  of  the  human  spirit  becoming 
wholly  divine.  In  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos  we  see 
the  restoration  of  the  original  unity  between  the  divine 
and  the  human,  and  the  earnest  of.  the  re-deification  of 
the  entire  spiritual  world.  He  did  not,  like  the  Latin 
theologians,  propound  a  doctrine  of  two  natures,  but 
set  himself  to  show  that  the  man  Christ  Jesus  became 
'  Harnack,  Outlines  of  the  Histonj  of  Dogma,  p.  10 1, 


REDEMPTION  AND   RESTORATION      185 

gradually  one  in  will  and  in  I'eelino-  with  the  Deit}^- 
and  is  in  this  respect  a  model  for  the  perfect  Christian 
to  whom  alone  His  person  can  be  known.  The  tendency 
of  his  speculation,  however,  was  to  obscure  the  reality 
of  the  Redeemer's  person.  By  representing  Him  as  all 
that  Christians  can  conceive  Him  to  have  been,  Origen 
virtually  reduces  Christ  to  the  sj'mbol  of  a  many-sided 
redemption.  For  the  advanced  Christian  His  humanit}'' 
together  with  its  history  has  no  real  significance.  What 
the  true  Gnostic  finds  in  Him  is  the  revelation  of  the 
divine  Reason.  The  only  important  consideration  for 
him  is  that  whereas,  hitherto,  the  Logos  had  dwelt  only 
very  partially  in  mankind,  his  indwelling  in  Jesus 
inaugurates  his  more  complete  indwelling  in  men.  He 
is  not  concerned  with  Christological  problems.  Ques- 
tions regarding  the  divinity  or  humanity  of  Christ 
are  only  for  imperfect  Christians,  who,  however,  are 
entitled  to  look  to  the  perfect  for  their  solution,  and 
for  the  defending  of  the  same  against  eii'or,  whether 
Docetic  or  Ebionitic. 

iii.  The  Sacrifice  of  Christ 

In  Origen's  view  redemption  is  in  no  sense  an 
exaltation  of  the  created  spirit  to  a  higher  position 
than  that  which  it  originally  occupied;  rather  is  it 
essentially  a  restoration  to  that  position  of  perfect  life 
in  God  which  the  spirits  in  the  exercise  of  freedom 
deliberately  abandoned.  The  redeemed  are  those  who, 
purified  from  every  stain  of  sin,  find  once  more  in  God 
their  all  in  all.  It  is  through  Christ  that  this  consum- 
mation is  reached.  In  Him  the  unit}''  of  God  and  the 
created  spirits,  which  had  been  broken  by  the  rebellion 


1 86     ORIGEN   AND   GREEK  THEOLOGY 

of  the  latter,  is  a^ain  actually  established ;  and  He  is 
thus  the  rallying  point  for  the  re-elevation  of  the 
entire  spiritual  world  to  the  divine. 

No  one  can  read  Origen  without  being  struck  with 
the  vastness  of  the  atniospliere.  The  Avide  sweep  of 
his  imagination,  his  speculative  boldness,  and  his  noble 
spirituality  are  in  e\idence  almost  on  every  page.  It 
Mas  a  natural  result  of  his  view  of  the  solidarity"  of  all 
things  that  he  should  have  regarded  the  death  of 
Christ  as  a  sacrifice  for  the  whole  w^orld.  Its  bene- 
ficial effects  are  not  limited  to  men ;  they  extend  to 
angels  as  well.  After  His  ascension  He  became  to  the 
angels  an  angel,  as  He  had  become  a  man  to  men,  and 
so  is  made  all  things  to  all.  His  blood,  shed  on 
Calvary  for  men,  has  been  mystically  sprinkled  upon 
the  heavenly  altar  for  the  redemption  of  celestial 
beings,  if  not  for  sin,  yet  in  order  to  an  increase  of 
their  blessedness.  Christ  was  thus  a  double  victim,  by 
the  blood  of  whose  cross  the  Father  has  reconciled  all 
things  unto  Himself,  whether  they  be  things  in  earth 
or  things  in  heaven.  The  effect  of  the  Saviour's 
offering  of  love  extends  to  the  utmost  reach  of  the 
disturbance  that  has  marred  God's  plan  of  creation. 
Even  in  Hades,  whither  His  soul  descended  whilst  His 
body  lay  in  the  tomb.  His  salvation  was  imparted  to 
the  sjjirits  that  were  willing  to  receive  Him.  So  true 
is  it  that  "  in  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  shall  bow, 
of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  tilings 
under  the  eartlt." 

Origen  was  the  first  among  the  early  Fathers  to 
elaborate  a  theory  of  the  Atonement.  In  doing  so  he 
made  use  not  of  the  Scriptures  only,  but  also  of  such 
current  popular  conceptions  as  appeared  to  him  ethically 


REDEMPTION  AND   RESTORATION      187 

valuable.  Among  those,  one  of  the  most  widespread 
was  that  which  viewed  the  death  oi*  Christ  as  a  ransom 
paid  to  the  devil,  who  held  us  in  bondage.  Through 
sin  Ave  sold  ourselves  to  him,  the  coin  he  paid  for  us 
being  that  of  murder,  adultery,  and  theft.  Christ's 
death  was  necessary  to  redeem  us  from  this  slavery. 
With  this  view  Origen  linked  on  the  Gnostic  notion, 
(founded,  doubtless,  upon  tlie  ancient  principle  that 
sincerity  towards  an  enemy  is  not  obligatory),  that  the 
devil  allowed  himself  to  be  duped.  God  offered  to  him 
the  human  soul  of  Christ  in  exchange  for  the  souls  of 
men.  This  the  devil  himself  greatly  desired,  considering 
that  with  Jesus  in  his  power  he  could  make  an  easy 
prey  of  the  whole  human  race.  Through  the  Lord's 
betrayers  and  murderers  he  took  possession  of  the  soul 
of  Jesus,  as  he  had  erstwhile  done  of  Job's  substance. 
But  the  torments  caused  him  by  that  sinless  soul  were 
so  intolerable  to  him  that  he  could  not  retain  his  hold 
upon  it.  Jesus  has  thus  vanquished  death  and  him 
that  had  the  power  of  it.  Not  only  so ;  His  victory  is 
also  the  emancipation  of  all  who  believe  on  Him.  The 
true  King  dethroned  the  usurper  even  where  he  had  set 
up  his  dominion ;  He  went  down  into  the  realm  of 
death  to  set  the  prisoners  free.  Thus,  then,  is  Christ 
our  ransom.  The  God  who  became  man,  the  divine 
high  priest  within  the  Redeemer,  paid  the  price  of  our 
redemption  from  the  sovereignty  of  Satan ;  and  the 
offering  which  He  laid  upon  the  altar  was  that  of  His 
human  soul.  The  body,  as  essentially  unreal,  could 
have  no  share  in  the  atonement,  and  His  spirit  the 
Saviour  had  already  committed  to  the  Father. 

Origen  further  regards  the  death  of   Christ  as  an 
expiation  offered  to  God.     Christ  has  reconciled  us  to 


1 88     ORIGEN   AND   GREEK  THEOLOGY 

the  Father  by  siiffciinp^  the  puni.slimcnt  of  death  to 
Avhicli  our  o;uilt  had  rendered  us  liable.  Although 
Origeii  did  not  develop  the  concei^tion  of  the  vicarious 
character  of  Christ's  sacrifice,  as  was  subsequently  done 
by  Ansehn,  lie  undoubtedly  took  this  view  of  it.  So 
much  i.s  implied  even  in  his  constant  use  of  the  epithet 
"  our  Saviour  "  ;  but  Ave  find  this  standpoint  definitely 
adopted  in  his  writings,  which  represent  Christ  as 
having  put  on,  so  to  speak,  our  filthy  garments,  and 
drunk  the  cup  of  suffering  that  we  might  be  spared  its 
bitterness,  while  God  has  "  willed  the  intervention  of  a 
proj^itiator,  that  those  might  be  justified  by  faith  in 
Him  who  could  not  be  justified  by  their  own  works." 
It  was  divinely  decreed  that  salvation  should  rest  upon 
sacrifice,  that  the  power  of  sin  should  yield  only  to  the 
power  of  crucified  love.  In  Origen's  view  punishment 
is  never  "identified  with  vengeance,  but  is  always 
-connected  M'itli  the  amendment  of  the  sinner."  There 
-  is  no  such  thing  as  divine  wi-ath.  When  through  the 
dominion  of  sin  chastisement  no  longer  availed  to  make 
men  better,  then  in  His  love  the  Father  sent  the  Son, 
who,  through  His  self-sacrificing  death,  destroyed  the 
power  of  sin,  and  won  for  us  remission  from  punish- 
ment. Christ's  sacrifice  is  thus  a  satisfactioli  not  to 
God's  penal  justice,  but  to  His  loving  will. 

By  His  death  upon  the  cross  and  His  glorious  resur- 
rection Christ  has  also,  according  to  Origen,  triumphed 
over  the  demons  and  freed  us  from  their  dominion. 
Their  weakness  stands  out  in  sharp  relief  against  the 
bright  background  of  the  holiness  revealed  in  the 
Redeemer's  sufferings.  It  is  this  holiness  that  gives  to 
these  sufferings  their  power.  In  virtue  of  it  the 
demons  are  repulsed,  and  we  are  enabled  to  enter  upon 


REDEMPTION  AND  RESTORATION      189 

the  new  life  of  those  "risen  witli  Christ."  If  His 
death  has  overcome  all  hostile  powers  of  evil,  it  is  no 
less  efficacious  in  subduing  sin  in  believers  themselves. 
But  only  those  w^ho  in  penitence  and  faith  yield  them- 
selves wliolly  to  Him  can  experience  the  sanctifying 
power  which  goes  forth  from  Him,  and  which  consumes 
sin  in  everyone  who  receives  it,  as  fire  consumes  the 
flesh  of  the  sacrificial  victim.  It  is  through  His  dcatli, 
which  was  in  every  way  indispensable  to  the  world's 
redemption,  that  this  divine  power  of  salvation  has 
come  to  full  realisation.  Freed  thereby  from  every 
corporeal  and  local  limitation,  He  places  His  divine 
love  at  the  service  of  all,  and  by  the  breath  of  His 
mouth  withers  up  evil.  In  the  martyrdom  of  the 
saints  there  is  a  virtual  continuation  of  the  crucifixion. 
As  a  true  priest  offering  the  sacrifice  of  himself,  the 
martyr  too,  in  his  own  measure,  conquers  evil.  All 
innocent  blood  diminishes  the  empire  of  evil,  its  efficacy 
in  this  direction  depending  upon  the  value  of  him  who 
surrenders  his  life. 

While  Origen  does  not,  like  the  Gnostics,  deny  the 
historical  chaiactcr  of  Christ's  redemptive  work,  nor, 
like  Clement,  virtually  ignore  its  objective  character ; 
while,  on  the  contrary,  he  maintains  that  for  less 
advanced  Christians  it  is  quite  essential,  he  yet  holds 
that  this  aspect  of  the  truth  is  not  the  highest.  Owing 
to  the  diversity  of  the  spirits,  particularly  of  men,  the 
redeeming  work  of  the  Word  is  not  confined  to  one 
stereotyped  form.  While  its  material  aspect  as  a 
visible  redemption  from  the  powers  of  evil  appeals 
most  strongly  to  those  of  weaker  capacity,  there  are 
others  to  whom  the  work  of  Jesus  is  primarily  one  of 
enlightenment.     In  communicating  to  them  fulness  of 


I90     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

knowledge  He  also  makes  Ihem  sharers  ol'  His  oAvn 
life.  Tlirouo-li  tlie  help  of  the  Divine  Teacher  they  are 
restored  to  fellowship  with  God  and  attain  to  deifica- 
tion. This  is  the  goal  for  all,  and  the  object  of 
Christianity  in  all  its  stages ;  but  the  true  Gnostic 
reaches  it  not  through  faith  in  the  crucified,  but 
through  knowledge  and  love.  In  this  way  he  rises 
above  the  historical  Christ,  and  lays  hold  of  the  very 
essence  of  the  Son  revealed  through  His  teaching  in 
the  eternal  gospel.  The  Christ  of  the  perfect  is  not  the 
Christ  of  faith,  but  the  Christ  who  dwells  in  us ;  not 
the  Christ  of  history,  but  the  Christ  of  experience.  In 
thus  maintaining  the  objective  reality  of  Christ's 
sacrifice,  while  yet  relegating  it  to  a  subordinate 
position,  Origen  has  recourse  to  what  Harnack  calls 
his  "  masterly  art  of  reconciling  contradictions,"  in  this 
case  the  respective  views  of  the  orthodox  Christians  and 
of  the  Gnostics.  But  the  clear-cut  manner  in  which  he 
separates  the  divine  and  human  elements  in  the  person 
of  Jesus,  to  the  destruction  of  its  unity,  constitutes  the 
chief  blot  upon  his  theory. 

iv.  TJlc  Soid's  Return  to  God 

If,  by  His  conquest  of  sin  and  Satan,  Christ  has 
rendered  our  salvation  possible,  there  must  still  be  on 
our  part  an  appropriation  of  it.  The  human  ^vill  must 
co-operate  with  the  divine  grace.  Christ's  work  leaves 
scope  for  our  freedom  and  our  faith.  No  doubt  "  in 
good  things  the  human  will  is  of  itself  weak  to  accom- 
plish any  good,  for  it  is  by  divine  help  that  it  is 
brought  to  perfection  in  everything,"  ^  yet  it  is  equally 
^  Dc  rrinc.  iii.  2.  2. 


REDEMPTION  AND   RESTORATION      191 

true  that  "  God  wislics  us  to  be  saved  by  means  ol"  our- 
selves." It  is  only  Avlien  avc  have  freely  clioscn  the 
good  part  that  grace  comes  to  our  aid.  The  measure 
of  its  bestowal  is  regulated  by  our  spiritual  progress. 
As  the  soul  ascends  by  successive  stages  to  the  divine, 
it  is  gradually  and  proportionately  endowed  witli 
grace. 

In  the  soul's  return  to  God  the  starting-point  is 
repentance,  whicli  must  be  earnest,  and  repeated  a\  ith 
every  new  transgression.  Like  John  the  Baptist,  it  is 
the  Lord's  forerunner,  preparing  His  way  in  the  soul. 
Even  a  good  man  will  stumble,  but  he  does  not,  like 
the  wicked,  abide  in  his  sin ;  rising  up  again,  he  turns 
to  the  Lord  Avith  bitter  tears  and  fasting,  and  so  escapes 
like  a  bird  from  the  snare  of  the  fowler.  In  the 
absence  of  repentance  Christ's  redemptive  work  is 
rendered  nugatory,  but  it  will  avail  us  even  after 
grievous  post-baptismal  sin  if  we  abandon  it  in  true 
penitence.  As  punishment  is  proportioned  to  trans- 
gression, so  is  forgiveness  to  repentance ;  a  partial 
repentance  means  only  a  partial  salvation.  True 
repentance  finds  vent  in  confession,  not  only  to  the 
Lord,  but  to  such  Christian  brethren  as  are  wise 
spiritual  pli3'sicians,  and  especially  to  "  a  priest  of  the 
Lord,"  by  whose  instruction  and  warnings  the  sinner 
may  be  helped  to  overcome  his  sin.  Christ  has  been 
expressly  commissioned  in  ordrr  tliat  tlie  (evil) 
thoughts  of  many  hearts  may  be  revealed,  and  that 
tlu'ougli  his  atoning  death  tliey  may  be  destroyed.  If 
we  thus  acknowledge  our  sin  now,  the  Lord  will  heal 
us;  but  if  we  fail  in  this  way  to  anticipate  our  accuser, 
we  must,  in  tliat  day  when  all  secrets  shall  be  dis- 
closed, share  his  fate  in  hell.     The  genuine  penitent  is 


192      ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

also  careful  to  reform  his  life.  Apart  from  such 
amendment,  repentance  is  vain  and  conversion  unreal. 
No  less  necessary  in  order  to  our  spiritual  recovery 
is  faith,  or  the  reception  into  the  heart  of  that  which 
is  believed.  For  faith  is  not  mere  assent,  but  a  heart- 
fellowship  with  God  which  expresses  itself  in  cor- 
responding works  of  righteousness.  It  is  our  own 
act,  although  for  all  increase  of  faith  we  are  dependent 
upon  divine  aid.  Faith  is  the  essential  prerequisite  of 
true  knowledge;  to  know  Christ  we  must  believe  on 
Him.  In  seeking  Him  we  must  aim  at  no  partial 
appropriation  of  His  grace  and  truth.  It  is  towards 
the  whole  Christ  "  in  His  indivisible  and  higher  nature  " 
that  our  desire  must  be  directed.  Yet  we  may  and  do 
partake  of  Him  in  different  degrees.  The  majority 
know  Christ  only  according  to  the  flesh,  i.e.  as  cruci- 
fied ;  and  while  even  so  they  occupy  a  higher  position 
than  the  idolater  or  star-worshipper,  or  heathen  philo- 
sopher, they  are  yet  but  the  slaves  of  the  Lord,  who 
must  rise  by  successive  stages  to  be  disciples,  little 
children,  children,  brothers  of  Jesus,  and  sons  of  God. 
Christ  is  tlius  formed  in  us  only  gradually,  and  dwells 
in  every  soul  in  proportion  to  its  receptivity.^  Our 
knowledge  is  a  gi-owing  quantity.  Beginning  with 
the  religious  apprehension  of  tilings  visible,  it  rises 
to  that  of  things  invisible.  From  the  vision  of  the 
crucified,  the  mind  passes  to  the  contemplation  of  the 
glorified.  Redeemer,  and  grasps,  so  far  as  in  it  lies,  the 
divine  essence  itself. 

^  If  Origen  was  a  speculative  latitudiiiarian,  he  was  also  a  sincerely 
pious  mystic — a  forerunner  of  Bernaid  oC  Clairvaux  and  the  unknown 
author  of  the  De  imUationc  Chridi,  of  Tauler  and  Bidimen,  of  Feuc'lon 
and  Madame  de  Guyon. 


REDEMPTION   AND   RESTORATION      193 

This  result,  however,  is  not  reached  througli  know- 
ledge alone,  apart  from  love.  The  true  knowledge 
is  not  of  a  cold  and  purely  intellectual  nature;  it 
is  essentially  love,  and  its  fruit  is  holiness.  Man's 
God  is  what  he  superlatively  loves.  The  cooling  of 
the  spirits  in  their  devotion  to  God  was  their  fall,  for 
it  meant  that  they  turned  with  zest  to  the  inferior. 
Man  is  so  constituted  that  he  must  love,  whether  the 
object  of  his  affection  be  the  truly  or  only  apparently 
good ;  and  wliere  he  chooses  wrongly,  and  becomes 
addicted  to  any  form  of  idolatry,  God  recalls  him 
through  loving  chastisement  to  the  right  path.  The 
lever  that  raises  us  is  the  divine  power  in  Christ ;  and 
when  we  have  by  this  means  ascended  from  the  depths 
of  sin  and  worldliness  to  the  heights  of  holiness,  M^e 
once  more  love  God  in  Christ  with  all  our  heart  and 
soul.  This  love  also  manifests  itself  as  obedience ;  it 
inspires  us  to  leave  all  and  follow  Him.  In  doing  so 
we  become  spiritually  regenerate.  The  work  of  Christ 
throws  open  to  us  the  path  of  regeneration;  but,  as 
conceived  by  Origen,  this  is  not  a  definite  renewal  of 
the  inward  nature.  It  is  merely  a  process,  wliich  is 
lifelong;  and,  owing  to  our  constant  liability  to 
deteriorate,  it  may  be  tortuous.  Of  regeneration  in 
the  sense  of  a  new  birth  or  radical  change  of  heart, 
accompanied  by  Christ's  royal  rescript  sealing  our 
pardon  and  opening  for  us  the  heavenly  sanctuary, 
Origen's  theological  system  knows  nothing.  This 
means  that  no  one  can  make  sure  of  heaven.  But 
thus  to  take  away  the  element  of  assurance  is  to 
emasculate  religion  by  depriving  men  of  the  peculiar 
rest  and  enju}'ment  which  the  doctrine  of  forgiveness 
is  fitted  to  afford.  While,  however,  in  this  way  the 
13 


194     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

very  marrow  of  evangelical  doctrine  may  be  said  to 
be  alien  to  Origen's  system  of  thought,  he  is  not 
careful  always  to  wear  the  strait  waistcoat.  Not 
only  docs  he  style  baptism  the  bath  of  regeneration : 
again  and  again,  in  setting  forth  the  love  of  God  the 
Fatlier,  and  tlic  blessings  of  adoption  and  sonship 
"  first  given  in  the  new  covenant,"  his  words  reflect 
in  no  inadequate  degi'cc  the  true  message  and  spirit  of 
the  gospel. 

In  its  progress  Godward,  then,  the  soul  rises  step 
by  step,  and  advances  from  one  stage  of  recovery  to 
another.  Beginning  with  faitli  in  the  crucified  Re- 
deemer and  the  acceptance  of  Holy  Scripture  in  its 
literal  sense,  our  knowledge  of  the  trutli  is  deepened 
and  widened  through  the  enlightening  influence  of  the 
Spirit,  until  its  sanctifying  power  cleanses  us  from  sin 
and  elevates  us  once  more  to  the  level  of  the  heavenly. 
Faith  becomes  a  higher  knowledge  wliich  reaches  its 
consunmiation  in  the  direct  spiritual  vision  of  trutli. 
Enlightenment  by  the  Spirit  is  bestowed  concurrently 
with,  and  in  proportion  to,  the  sanctification  of  the 
heart,  and  as  the  result  of  this  twofold  spiritual  pro- 
cess the  redemption  brought  by  Christ  is  realised  in 
us.  In  other  words,  this  is  the  path  along  which 
humanity  can  reach  its  destined  goal  of  deification. 

Although  he  confidently  contrasts  the  Christian  with 
the  heathen,  Origen  admits  that  owing  to  the  inborn 
tendency  to  sin  as  well  as  the  constraint  of  evil  habits, 
there  is  in  every  case  much  required  in  order  to  com- 
plete sanctification.  But  the  Spirit  of  God  can  effect 
tliis  in  the  face  of  all  obstacles.  Where  there  is  the 
willing  heart,  and  no  lack  of  spiritual  exercise,  there 
will  be  progress  in  holiness.     What  is  evil  in  us  will 


REDEMPTION   AND   RESTORATION      195 

be  cast  out;  what  is  hostile  to  our  spiritual  life  will 
be  overcome.  The  Sa\ioui'  waits  to  wash  hands,  and 
feet,  and  head,  until  we  be  entirely  purged  from  sin. 
Perfect  sinlessness,  however,  is  not  always  effected 
wherever  Christianity  is  embraced ;  indeed,  this  result 
is  attained  by  but  few  professing  Christians,  and  apart 
from  the  acceptance  of  Christian  doctrine  it  cannot  be 
attained  at  all. 

In  Origen's  system  Christian  ethics  is  based  on  Christ 
as  "the  substance  of  the  virtues."  The  moral  quality 
of  an  action  is  determined  by  its  ultimate  relation  to 
Him.  Those  who  profess  to  be  His  disciples,  and  yet 
let  tlie  cares  of  this  life  or  the  deceitfulness  of  riches 
crush  him  out  of  their  minds,  are  wreathing  his  brow 
afresh  with  the  crown  of  thorns.  It  is  not  slavish 
obedience  to  the  outward  letter  of  the  law,  but  the  free 
obedience  of  the  spirit  proceeding  from  love,  that  con- 
stitutes true  holiness.  It  is  in  the  heart  that  good  and 
evil  are  reall}^  accomplished,  and  to  the  pure  in  con- 
science all  things  are  pure.  Under  the  Christian 
dispensation  tlie  only  fasting  of  real  value  is  fasting 
from  sin,  and  the  only  consecrated  altar  is  that  of  the 
believing  heart.  Neitlier  is  there  any  such  distinction 
of  days  as  in  Judaism,  for  all  days  alike  are  days  of 
the  Lord.  Lofty  as  is  the  spiritual  character  of  this 
teaching,  Origen  takes  a  somewhat  narrow  view  of 
certain  points  connected  with  individual  and  social 
ethics.  This  was  no  doubt  due  to  the  fact  that  in  his 
time  the  State  was  based  not  upon  Christian  but  upon 
pagan  ideas.  He  was  thus  constrained  to  teach  that 
Christians  may  serve  kings  by  praying  for  them,  but 
must  not  bear  arms  or  "  slay  men."  They  must  even 
decline  public  office  in  the  interests  of  a  diviner  service 


196     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

in  the  Churcli  of  CJod.^  "  Things  strangled  "  are  not  fit 
food  for  a  Christian ;  an  oath  of  any  sort  is  not  for 
him.  To  contract  a  second  marriage  is  highly  censur- 
able ;  to  attend  a  theatre  or  a  circus  is  to  commit  sin. 
Most  astonishing  of  all  is  it  to  find  Origen  following 
Plato  in  maintaining  the  necessity  of  "the  medicinal 
lie "  l^ecause  of  its  corrective  effect  upon  the  patient. 
In  spite  of  these  blemishes,  however,  liis  ethical  stand- 
point must  be  pronounced  singularly  exalted  and 
pure. 

In  his  idea  of  the  Churcli  Origen  dissociates  himself 
from  the  view  accepted  in  the  West  since  Cyprian's 
time,  that  it  consists  of  all  wlio  are  baptized.  He  lays 
stress  upon  tlic  distinction  between  the  Church  visible 
and  invisible,  and  in  this  particular  he  represents  a 
distinct  advance  upon  the  view  of  his  predecessor 
Clement  also.  For  Origen  the  Church  is  the  com- 
munity of  the  holy,  the  one  family  of  the  saints  in 
heaven  and  upon  earth,  tlie  great  company  whose 
ruling  impulse  is  the  will  of  God.  It  is  the  Lord's 
bride,  His  house,  His  temple.  His  body,  and  is  without 
spot  or  wrinkle.  Its  members  are  confined  to  those 
who  truly  believe,  and  outside  of  it  there  is  no  salva- 
tion. In  the  visible  Church,  despite  the  utmost  effort 
to  secure  purity,  there  will  always  be  some  tares 
among  the  wheat.  Open  sinners  are  to  be  cast  out  of 
the  congregation,  as  are  also  even  lesser  offenders 
whom  repeated  warnings  fail  to  affect.  As  Origen, 
however,  had  reason  to  knoAV,  there  may  be  sucli  a 
thing  as  unjust  excommunication  on  the  part  of 
"envious  and  self-seeking  bisliops,"  but  in  this  case 
there  is  no  exclusion  from  tlie  kingdom  of  heaven,  just 
'  Contra  Cchum,  viii.  73-75. 


REDEMPTION   AND  RESTORATION      197 

as,  on  the  contrary,  such  exckision  does  take  place 
in  the  case  of  the  sinnei-  against  whom  no  eccle- 
siastical sentence  has  been  pronounced.  Those  who 
are  wrongly  cast  out  of  the  Church  must  bow  to  the 
unjust  decree,  and  await  tlie  unerring  judgment  of  the 
future. 

The  unity  of  the  Church  is  spiritual,  and  exists 
iTuder  a  variety  of  outward  organisation.  Many 
clmrches  go  to  form  the  Church  visible,  which  in 
Origen's  view,  as  in  Clement's,  is  the  reflex  of  the 
heavenly  Zion.  Noteworthy  and  interesting  in  this 
connection  is  his  attitude  towards  the  Roman  See. 
While  not  animated  by  the  hierarchical  spirit  of  the 
West,  and  while  maintaining  that  every  Christian  who 
adopts  Peter's  confession  shares  in  the  privilege  con- 
veyed in  the  Saviour's  words,  "  Whatsoever  thou 
slialt  bind  on  earth,  shall  be  bound  in  heaven;  and 
whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed  in 
heaven,"  he  nevertheless  felt  a  genuine  veneration  for 
the  antiquity  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  was  ready 
in  a  limited  sense  to  admit  its  primacy.  If  the  Lord 
did  not  found  the  Church  upon  Peter  to  the  exclusion 
of  tlie  rest  of  the  apostles,  He  nevertheless  by  His  words 
distinguished  him  above  them  all.  Orio-en  did  not 
regard  this  distinction  as  the  hereditary  possession  of 
Peter's  successors  at  Rome,  but  at  the  same  time  he 
looked  upon  "  the  eternal  city "  as  the  most  ancient 
and  honourable  seat  of  the  Christian  faith.  With 
great  zest  he  made  a  pilgrimage  to  it  in  order  that  lie 
might  witness  and  hear  for  himself  the  worship  and 
doctrine  of  what  had  already  become  the  leading 
Church  in  Christendom,  and  perhaps  his  keenest  pang 
in  connection  with  his  condemnation  by  Demetrius  was 


198     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK   THEOLOGY 

caused  by  the  knowledge  that  it  was  acquiesced  in  by 
the  Italian  See.^ 

Accoiding  to  Ovigen  every  Christian  is  a  priest  in 
virtue  of  the  spiritual  sacrifice  which  he  offers.  Through 
almsgiving,  charity,  self-niortification,  niartj'rdom,  we 
share  in  the  saciiiicc  of  Christ,  and  so  in  His  priest- 
hood. But  it  is  only  in  this  moral  and  figurative  sense 
that  an}'  layman  can  bo  failed  a  priest.  Origen  did 
not  allow  the  treatment  meted  out  to  himself  to  lead 
him  to  belittle  the  office  of  the  ministry.  He  magnifies 
it  more  than  Clement  does,  and  shows  a  distinct  leaning 
towards  a  restricted  use  of  the  priestly  name.  Those 
who  bear  it,  however,  must  have  a  character  in  keeping 
with  it.  In  short,  "  his  doctrine  of  clerical  authority  is 
not  unlike  that  of  Wiclif.  The  power  to  bind  and 
loose  depends  upon  the  spiritual  worthiness  of  him 
who  wields  it."-  No  fixed  conclusion  had  been  arrived 
at  regarding  the  extent  of  this  power.  A  distinction 
was  generally  made  between  mortal  and  ^■enial  sins, 
but  it  remain(>d  a  question  whether  mortal  sins  such  as 
nmrder  or  idolatry,  connnitted  after  baptism,  could  be 
forgiven  on  earth.  In  some  cases  a  single  absolution 
was  allowed,  but  already  in  Origen's  day  the  Church 
of  Rome  regarded  no  sin  as  unpardonable  if  duly 
repented  of.  His  f)\\ai  view  on  the  subject  appears  to 
liave  undergone  a  change.  In  his  earlier  writings  he 
uncomj^ronn'singly  affirms  that  no  death-sin  can  be 
forgiven  by  the  Church.  Not  that  in  such  a  case  the 
sinner  is  hopelessly  lost;  God  may  forgive  him  in  some 

^  At  all  events,  if  we  may  trust  Eusehiiis,  he  wrote  to  Pope  Fabian  in 
vindication  of  liis  ortliodoxy,  and  requesting  to  be  readmitted  to  fellow- 
sliij>.     See  above,  p.  53. 

^  Bigg,  Christian  Plaiouists,  p.  215. 


REDEMPTION  AND  RESTORATION      199 

future  03011.  Latterly,  liowever,  he  represents  the  most 
heiiious  sins  as  the  subjects  of  priestly  absolution,  and 
reserves  the  excommunication  of  the  Church  for  tlie 
obdurately  impenitent. 

Orioen  was  no  sacrainentarian.  He  attached  but 
little  importance  to  the  visible.  In  his  view  the 
sacraments  have  only  a  S3''mbolic  value,  and  belong  to 
the  categoiy  of  veiled  forms  and  images  by  which  the 
truth  can  be  communicated  to  the  "common  man." 
For  the  latter,  indeed,  they  are  essential,  while  even  to 
the  advanced  Christian  they  are  of  some  consequence. 

Baptism  with  water  is  merely  the  symbol  of  the 
soul's  purification.  It  does  not  effect  this ;  it  only 
represents  it.  The  puiihcation  itself  is  antecedent  to 
baptism  ;  we  must  be  dead  to  sin  before  we  can  through 
baptism  be  buried  with  Christ.  A  certain  impurit}'', 
moral  as  well  as  physical,  attaches  to  birth,  but  in 
baptism  we  have  the  visible  counterpart  to  this.  It  is 
thus  a  second  birth,  by  means  of  which  the  stains  of 
the  first  are  erased.  Not  that  this  result  is  due  to  the 
water,  for  baptism  is  essentially  a  birth  from  above 
through  the  Holy  Ghost.  Where  it  is  not  such,  it  has 
no  purifying  power.  Those  who  seek  baptism  without 
laying  aside  their  sins  do  not  thereby  obtain  pardon. 
While  the  Saviour  baptizes  the  holy  with  the  Spirit, 
He  relegates  the  sinful  to  the  fire.  The  same  outward 
ceremony  may  thus  be  fraught  with  salvation  or  with 
condemnation.  To  receive  baptism  unto  salvation  is 
far  from  easy.  There  is  no  magical  or  necessary  con- 
nection between  baptism  with  water  and  the  reception 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  where  it  is  properly  received, 
and  the  Spirit  communicated,  the  s3nnl)olic  character 
of  baptism  is  transcended,  so  to  speak,  and  it  becomes, 


200     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

through  the  power  of  the  invocation  of  the  Trinity, 
"the  beginning  and  source  of  divine  gifts  of  grace," 
operating  tlic  forgiveness  of  all  former  sins,  and  filling 
the  heart  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  pardon  of  post- 
baptismal  sins  must  be  procured  by  ourselves  through 
repentance,  charity,  constant  striving  after  what  is 
good,  and  should  it  so  please  God,  tlirough  the  bloody 
baptism  of  a  martyr's  death.  In  accordance  witli 
apostolic  tradition,  the  Church  administers  baptism 
even  to  infants  in  recognition  of  the  fact  tliat  in  every 
human  being  are  real  stains  of  sin  which  require  to  be 
washed  away  by  water  and  the  Spirit. 

Quite  in  keeping  witli  this  view  of  baptism  is 
Origeu's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  In  no  case 
does  he  attach  value  to  the  external  and  the  material, 
and  accordingly  it  is  not  the  sign  but  the  thing 
signified  that  has  importance  for  him.  Not  that  the 
water  in  baptism  or  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Supper 
are  worthless ;  they  do  confer  something,  but  only  in 
the  same  way  as  the  external  in  the  life  of  Christ 
whose  miracles  were  fraught  with  temporal  advantage 
to  those  on  whom  they  were  wrought,  while  yet  as 
helps  to  faith  their  true  significance  was  a  spiritual 
one.  With  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lamb  of  God  for  the 
sin  of  tlie  world,  otlier  sacrifices  have  ceased.  In  the 
Eucharist,  tlierefore,  there  is  no  material  sacrifice,  no 
bloodless  repetition  of  the  sin-offering  on  the  Cross,  the 
only  sacrifice  associated  with  it  being  tluit  of  the 
Christian  liimself ;  and  no  material  presence  of  Clu'ist, 
who  is,  liowever,  rcall}''  and  spiritually,  and  really  just 
because  S2:)iritually,  present.  When  the  Saviour  speaks 
of  His  body  and  blood.  He  does  so  in  a  sj)iritual  sense. 
These  terms  refer  to  His  teaching:.     When  we  receive 


REDEMPTION   AND   RESTORATION      201 

them  we  are  said  to  eat  His  flesh  and  drink  His  blood. 
"  For  it  was  not  that  visible  bread  which  He  held  in 
His  hands  that  God  the  Word  called  His  body,  but  the 
word  as  a  symbol  whereof  that  bread  was  to  be  broken. 
Nor  was  it  that  visible  cup  that  He  called  His  blood, 
but  the  word  as  a  symbol  whereof  that  wine  was  to  be 
poured  out."  ^  The  body  and  blood  of  Christ  can  only 
be  that  word  which  nourishes  and  delights  our  souls. 
"Inasmuch  as  He  is  perfectly  pure,  His  whole  flesh  is 
food ;  and  because  His  every  act  is  holy  and  His  every 
word  true,  His  whole  blood  is  drink.  For  by  the  flesh 
and  blood  of  His  word,  as  if  by  pure  food  and  drink, 
the  whole  human  race  is  refreshed."  ^  Of  this  true 
bread  from  heaven  the  desert-manna  was  the  type,  and 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  the  appointed  memorial.  In  this 
commemorative  feast  w^e  are  re-endowed  with  the  grace 
of  God,  not,  of  course,  through  the  mere  external  act  of 
communicating,  but  through  the  spiritual  enjoyment  of 
the  mystic  bread.  We  renew  the  memory  of  Christ's 
body  and  blood  by  exercising  trust  in  Him  and  by  ex- 
pressing our  confidence  in  prayer.  Although  Romanists 
have  claimed  his  support,  there  is  no  ground  for  the 
opinion  that  Origen  held  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation  in  any  form.  No  change  takes  place  in 
the  elements  used ;  they  do  not  "  become "  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ.  He  does,  however,  refer  to  the 
idea  of  a  bodily  presence  in  the  Supper  as  distinctive 
of  the  elementary  Christian  who  is  in  bondage  to  the 
letter,  so  that  already  in  his  time  this  strange  super- 
stition had  apparently  arisen.  Origen  calls  attention  to 
the  fact  that  Christ  did  not  say,  "  This  is  the  bread  of 
the  New  Testament,"  as  He  said  of  the  cup,  "  This  is 
'  In  Malt.,  Scries  85.  "  In  Lev.,  Honi.  vii.  5. 


202     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

My  blood  of  the  Now  Testament,"  because  the  bread  is 
the  word  of  righteousness  or  of  the  Old  Testament, 
wliile  the  wine  is  the  word  of  the  knowledge  of  Christ. 
Old  Testament  righteousness  cannot  confer  blessedness 
apart  from  faith  in  His  passion.  It  is  written,  "  Blessed 
is  he  that  shall  eat  bread  in  the  kingdom  of  God." 
There,  however,  there  will  be  no  eating  and  drinking 
of  a  corporeal  nature,  but  a  partaking  of  that  angelic 
food  of  whicli  our  Lord  speaks  when  He  saj's,  "  My 
meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  Me."  This  is 
meat  indeed  and  drink  indeed.  The  elements  used  in 
the  sacrament  are  merely  symbols  to  assist  our  weak- 
ness. The  bread  in  itself  is  and  remains  corruptible. 
It  can  do  us  no  good  apart  from  a  living  faith,  a  pure 
heart,  and  an  upright  conscience.  It  is  not  leaving  off 
to  eat  of  the  consecrated  bread  that  works  us  harm, 
but  the  wickedness  that  leads  to  such  omission;  nor 
does  the  observance  of  the  sacrament  do  us  good  if  we 
be  lacking  in  regard  to  a  virtuous  life.  In  listening  to 
Christ's  words  we  drink  His  blood  as  truly  as  we  do  in 
the  Supper ;  the  only  difference  is  the  introduction  in 
the  latter  case  of  tlie  symbolical.  What  is  of  service 
to  those  who  observe  it  not  unworthily  is  not  the 
material  bread,  but  the  prayer  of  faith  which  has  been 
uttered  over  it;  and  wliat  injures  those  who  partake 
of  it  unworthily  is  not  the  bread  itself,  but  the  power 
of  the  truth  in  the  words  buund  up  witli  it. 

V.  The  Lost  Thiv(js 

Origen  dissociates  himself  entirely  from  those  who 
paint  the  future  in  colours  of  sensuous  attractiveness, 
and  look  to  it  for  a  repetition  on  a  luxurious  scale  of 


REDEMPTION   AND  RESTORATION      203 

such  bodily  pleasures  as  may  be  tasted  in  tliis  life. 
He  rejects  tlie  notion  that  the  earthly  Jerusalem  will 
be  rebuilt,  and  that  the  favoured  inhabitants  will  live 
on  the  wealth  of  other  countries,  whose  sons  shall 
minister  to  their  enjoyment.  To  cherish  such  mis- 
taken ideas  is  to  interj)ret  the  Scriptures  "  in  a  sort  of 
Jewish  sense,"  and  to  show  an  incapacity  to  understand 
metaphor.  It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that,  when  the 
Saviour  makes  a  promise  to  the  disciples  concerning 
the  joy  of  drinkino-  wine  with  them  in  His  Father's 
kino-doui,  or  asserts  the  blessedness  of  those  who  hunger 
and  thirst,  He  intends  His  words  to  be  applied  in  a  grossly 
literal  sense.  This  would  be  to  extract  from  them  a  mean- 
ing unworthy  of  the  divine  promises.  The  food  of  the 
saints  will  be  the  bread  of  life,  and  their  drink  the  cup 
of  divine  wisdom.  So  far  from  being  of  a  sensuous  char- 
acter, the  future  glory  of  God's  kingdom  will  be  such  as 
it  hath  not  entered  into  the  heart  of  man  to  conceive. 

When  a  soul  departs  this  life,  the  evil  spirits  endeav- 
our t(5  make  a  prey  of  it.  In  this  they  are  successful, 
should  it  reflect  their  own  avarice,  envy,  and  other  bad 
qualities ;  but  those  souls  that  have  followed  Christ 
are  delivered  fi'om  their  power.  Only  a  few,  such  as 
the  saints  and  martyrs,  are  fit  to  enter  at  once  on 
the  direct  vision  of  God ;  the  vast  majority  require  to 
undergo  a  process  of  purification  before  they  can  reach 
the  hiohest  blessedness.  At  death  the  good  are  borne 
by  angels  to  a  great  lofty  island  situated  somewhere 
upon  this  earth.^     This  earthly  paradise   is   the  first 

» Cf.  Dante— 

"Me  God's  angel  took, 
Whilst  lie  of  hell  exclaimed  :  0  thou  from  heaven  ! 
Say  wherefore  hast  thou  robbed  me  ? " 

{Funjatory,  v.  101-103.) 


204     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

place  oi'  trial,  and  witnesses  the  initiatory  stage  of 
purification  from  those  heaver  offences  whicli  could  not 
be  visited  with  due  chastisement  in  tliis  life.  Origen 
describes  it  as  "  a  school  of  souls,"  in  which  they  are 
taught  by  angels  tlie  meaning  of  what  they  saw  on 
earth,  and  also  receive  some  insight  as  to  the  course  of 
future  events.  Here,  too,  they  are  instructed  regarding 
tlie  nature  of  soul  and  spirit,  as  well  as  the  full 
significance  of  Holy  Scripture.  From  this  lower  para- 
dise souls  ascend  to  a  higher,  in  order  to  undergo  still 
further  purification.  This  ascent  does  not  take  place 
with  uniform  speed;  some  rise  more  slowly  than 
others.  But  each  as  he  mounts  upwards  through  the 
spheres  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  sees  what  is  done  in 
these  regions  of  tlie  air,  and  discovers  wh}'  things  are 
so  done.  At  last,  liaving  passed  through  all  gradations, 
and  being  purged  from  every  defilement,  the  soul  rises 
in  the  pure  ether  to  God,  and  passes  into  the  heavens 
as  a  follower  of  Him  who  has  said,  "  I  will  that  where 
lam  there  ye  maybe  also."  In  this  way  many  may 
reach  the  kingdom  of  God  before  tlie  final  consumma- 
tion of  the  Avoi-ld. 

The  souls  of  the  wicked  are  incapable  of  such  an 
ascent,  and  remain  behind  in  Hades,  the  place  of 
punishment.  Indeed,  till  Christ  descended  and  released 
them,  even  the  souls  of  the  patriarchs  and  the  prophets 
could  not  pass  the  i^ery  sword  that  barred  the  way  to 
paradise.  Those  who  died  before  His  advent  had  to 
wait  for  Him  in  Hades.^     Now,  however,  though  all 

'  Cf.  Dantc'.s  lines — 

"I  was  new  to  that  estate, 
Wlien  I  beheld  a  jiuissant  one  arrive 
Amongst  us,  with  victorious  trophy  crownVl. 
He  foitli  the  sliade  of  our  first  parent  drew, 


REDEMPTION  AND  RESTORATION      205 

must  still  pass  through  the  fire,  the  righteous  can  do  so 
unscorched,  because  in  tliem  there  is  notliing  on  Avhicli 
it  can  seize.^     But  the  godless  are  "  tormented  in  this 
flame,"  which  the  Lord  has  kindled  to  consume  evil ; 
they  are,  that  is  to  say,  the  prisoners  of  remorse.     For 
the  flames  of  Hades  are  not  material ;  they  are  the 
tortures  of  an  accusing  conscience,  a  vivid  recollection 
of  sin,  and  the  agony  caused  by  the  separation  of  soul 
and   spirit.      But   for   the   guilty  this   is   punishment 
enough.     Indeed  we  can  no  more  conceive  the  misery 
of  the  condenmod  than  we  can  imagine  what  God  has 
prepared  for  them  that  love  Him.     There  is,  however, 
a  limit  to  their  punishment ;  it  is  not  really  eternal, 
though  so  called.     Still,  it  may  last  for  ages,  for  the 
uttermost  farthing  must  be  paid.     But  sin  that  is  un- 
pardoned  in   this,  may  be   pardoned   in   some   future 
ason.     Punishment,  too,  has  always  been  a  pinifying 
power;   its  sole  purpose  is  to   purify;   and  the  time 
must  come  when  the  worst  may  escape  from  the  penal 
fire.    Every  soul  must  ultimately  pass  out  of  purgatory, 
and   every  world-epoch  must  end  in  the  rescue  and 
deification  of  all  spirits  in  order  to  make  way  for  a 
new  one.     "  The  end  of  the  world,  and  the  final  con- 
Abel  his  child,  ajid  Noah  righteous  man, 
Of  jMoses  lawgiver  for  faith  approv'd, 
Of  patriarch  Aliraham,  and  David  king, 
Israel  with  his  sire  and  with  his  sons, 
Nor  without  Kachel  whom  so  hard  he  won, 
And  others  many  more,  whom  he  to  bliss 
Exalted."— (/w/croo,  iv.  49-59.) 
^  So,  too,  Dante  : — 

"I  am  so  framed  by  God,  thanks  to  His  grace! 
That  any  sufferance  of  your  misery 
Touches  me  not,  nor  flame  of  that  fierce  fire 
Assails  me." — {Inferno,  ii.  90-93.) 


2o6     ORIGEN   AND   GREEK   THEOLOGY 

summation,  Avill  take  place  \\\wn  every  one  shall  be 
subjected  to  punishment  for  liis  sins;  a  time  which 
God  alone  knows,  when  He  will  bestow  on  each  what 
he  deserves.  We  think,  indeed,  that  the  goodness  oi" 
God,  through  His  Christ,  may  recall  all  1  lis  creatures  to 
one  end,  e\en  His  enemies  being  conquered  and  siibdued." 
Thus  did  Origen  cling  to  the  larger  hope,  although  He 
regarded  this  as  an  esoteric  doctrine  ;  "  for  the  multitude 
it  is  sufficient  to  know  that  the  sinner  is  punished." 

Corresponding  to  this  development  of  the  destiny 
of  the  individual  soul  after  death  there  is  a  general 
development  of  God's  kingdom  upon  earth.  The  gospel 
gains  increasing  acceptance ;  the  Jews  are  con\-erted ; 
and  there  is  a  reign  of  peace.  So  far,  however,  even 
under  these  circumstances,  is  sin  from  being  destroyed, 
that  there  W'ill  be  a  final  rally  of  all  the  poM'ers  of  evil 
under  Antichrist,  in  accordance  with  the  prophecy  of 
Daniel  and  the  writings  of  St.  Paul.  After  a  period  of 
war  and  famine,  earthquakes  and  pestilence,  during 
which  some  repent  w^hile  others  persist  in  wickedness, 
the  end  of  the  world  shall  come  suddenly  and  un- 
expectedly, w^hilc  men  cat  and  drink,  buy  and  sell, 
build  and  plant.  The  dissolution  of  the  earth  by  fire, 
which  only  the  more  simple  understand  in  the  literal 
and  material  sense,  is  merely  a  metaphorical  way  of 
delineating  those  inward  heart-throes  by  which  evil 
is  erased  from  the  souls  of  the  penitent.  There  will, 
however,  be  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth,  in  so  far  as 
"  the  fashion  of  tliis  world  passeth  away."  But  tliis  docs 
not  involve  the  destruction  of  the  material  substance  of 
the  universe ;  it  implies  only  a  change  of  (juality. 

At  the  close  of  the  present  aeon  Christ  will  return  to 
judge  the  world  in  righteousness.     This  event  is  spoken 


REDEMPTION  AND  RESTORATION      207 

of  in  Scripture  alter  the  analogy  of  a  liinnan  trilnnial 
in  order  to  give  it  Aividncs.s,  but  in  fact  there  will  be 
no  outwardly  visible  appearance  of  the  Lord.  His 
return  is  not  material,  but  spiritual.  The  symbolic 
imagery  used  by  the  propliets  in  speaking  of  this  sub- 
ject is  to  be  spiritually  interpreted.  Christ  appears 
actually,  in  power  and  glory,  revealing  His  true  nature 
to  all,  to  the  wicked  as  well  as  to  the  righteous,  yet  not 
otherwise  than  He  even  now  unfolds  Himself  to  the 
eye  of  faith.  Although  this  is  the  sense  in  which  he 
understands  the  second  coming,  Origen  is  careful  to 
explain  that  he  does  not  rt^ect  "the  second  presence  of 
the  Son  of  God  more  simply  understood."  Not  men 
alone,  but  all  spirits  nuist  appear  before  Christ  for 
judgment.  To  the  demons  ai-e  meted  out  the  punish- 
ments reserved  for  them,  and  in  the  endurance  of  which 
their  wickedness  will  be  gradually  puiged.  By  this 
means  the  very  devil  himself  will  in  the  end  be  re- 
covered to  goodness.  Even  although,  strictly  speaking, 
he  is  not  to  be  classed  as  a  universalist,  never  certainly 
has  universalism  found  more  thoroughgoing  expression 
than  in  the  thought  of  Origen.  In  regard  to  the  parti- 
cular question  of  the  salvation  of  Satan,  it  is  curious 
and  interesting  to  find  an  answering  echo  to  the  boldly 
optimistic  creed  of  the  great  Alexandrian  in  the  breast 
of  our  own  Scottish  poet  Burns — 

"  But,  fare  you  weel,  auld  Kickie-ben  ! 
O  wad  ye  talc  a  thought  an'  men'  ! 
Ye  aiblins  might — I  dinna  ken — 

Still  hae  a  stake: 
I'm  wae  to  think  upo'  yon  den 

Ev'n  for  your  sake  !  "  ^ 


Address  to  the  Dcil. 


2oS     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

The  doctrine  oi"  the  resurrection  of  tlie  body  Origcn 
accepted  as  an  integral  part  of  the  Church's  creed,  and 
even  defended  it  in  opposition  to  heretics.  What  made 
it  possible  for  him  to  take  up  this  position  —  that 
he  liad  difficulties  about  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine  is 
evident  from  Contra  Cel.s.  v.  14  fF. — was  the  language 
used  by  St.  Paul  regarding  a  spiritual  body.  This 
enabled  him  to  get  rid  of  his  doubts,  and  to  take  refuge 
in  certain  characteristic  refinements  upon  the  apostle's 
words.  In  this  way  he  was  led  to  hold  that  at  the 
resurrection  we  shall  be  clothed  a  second  time  with  the 
body  tliat  we  now  inhabit.  It  will  be  the  same,  but 
with  a  difference.  Owing  to  a  change  in  its  material 
substance,  it  will  be  spiritual,  glorious,  incorruptible. 
By  the  power  and  grace  of  the  resurrection  there 
will  be  educed  from  the  animal  body  a  spiritual  body 
devoid  of  all  material  attributes,  and  even  of  members 
witli  sensuous  functions,  a  body  resplendent  as  the 
stars  of  heaven.  Tliis  is  possible,  because  in  the  sub- 
stance of  the  body  there  is  an  indestructible  germ 
wliicli  raises  it  up  and  restores  it,  as  the  germinative 
principle  in  the  grain  of  wheat  which  dies  in  the 
ground  restores  the  grain  into  a  body  having  stalk  and 
ear.  The  will  of  God  who  made  it  what  it  is  can  raise 
this  present  body  of  ours  to  the  purity  and  splendour  of 
a  spiritual  body  "  according  as  the  condition  of  things 
requires,  and  the  deserts  of  our  rational  nature  shall 
demand."  ^  The  differences  in  the  degree  of  glory 
among  those  who  rise  again  are  explained  by  the  fact 
that  the  soul's  new  tenement  is  conditioned  by  its 
worth.  In  every  case  the  general  features  will  be 
preserved,  and  the  body  suited  to  its  new  environment. 
'  Uc  Frinc.  ii.  10.  3  ;  iii.  6.  4. 


REDEMPTION  AND  RESTORATION      209 

Origen  holds  strongly  that  "  the  end  imist  be  like  tlie 
beginning,"  a  perfect  unity  in  God.  As  the  result  of 
the  soul's  progress  through  discipline,  there  will  be 
efl'ected  a  restoration  exhibiting  the  perfect  equilibrium 
of  a  perfect  life.  Law  shall  not  clash  witli  freedom, 
nor  justice  collide  M'ith  love.  But  this  great  con- 
summation, the  complete  return  of  the  all  to  the 
original  unity  with  God,  lies  still  beyond  the  resurrec- 
tion, which  only  brings  it  nearer.  One  by  one  the 
wholly  sanctified  reach  their  goal,  no  more  to  wander ; 
but  many  must  be  still  further  instructed  and  purified 
before  they  can  stand  around  God's  throne.  Towards 
this  result,  however,  all  things  tend,  and  at  length  the 
end  comes.  Tlien  all  know  the  Father  even  as  He  is 
known  by  the  Son.  E\'il  is  abolished  by  the  conversion 
of  the  wicked,  and  that  goal  of  happiness  is  reached  in 
which  God  is  said  to  be  "  all  in  all."  Not  that  even 
then  all  are  on  a  level.  There  are  "  many  mansions," 
many  degrees  of  blessedness.  Through  sin  the  soul 
may  for  ever  be  unfitted  for  gaining  the  loftiest  heights, 
and  from  this  standpoint,  at  any  rate,  Origen  declares 
the  eternity  of  punishment. 

Origen  looked  with  disfavour  upon  the  primitive 
Christian  eschatology,  which  connected  blessedness 
with  the  second  advent  of  Christ  and  the  last  judgment. 
For  him  the  state  of  perfect  felicity  is  reached  im- 
mediately upon  the  severance  of  the  believing  soul 
from  the  mortal  body.  The  brilliant  attempt  which  he 
makes  to  convey  an  adequate  idea  of  bliss,  while  yet 
eliminating  all  sensual  delights,  deserves  to  rank  as 
one  of  the  grandest  efforts  of  genius.  The  notion  of 
a  purgatory  or  cleansing  fire,  based  upon  1  Cor.  iii. 
13-15,  is  a  legacy  to  the  Church  from  the  Alexandrians. 
14 


2  10     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

After  Clement  and  Origen,  however,  the  only  one  of 
the  Greek  Fathers  who  seems  to  have  retained  the  idea 
was  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  It  ultimately  passed  through 
Ambrose  into  the  Western  Church,  where  it  soon 
became  naturalised ;  and  in  the  great  poem  of  Dante  it 
has  received  such  graphic  and  striking  expression  as  to 
secure  for  it  a  permanent  place  among  the  conceptions 
that  have  moulded  and  dominated  theological  thought. 
One  of  the  least  satisfactory  features  of  the  eschatology 
of  Origen,  and  of  the  Greek  theologians  who  followed 
him,  is  the  extent  to  which  it  ignores  the  thought  of 
the  judgment  and  the  responsibility  before  God  of 
every  individual  soul.  In  primitive  Christianity  these 
were  matters  that  were  not  allowed  to  slip  into  the 
background,  and  to  cease  to  lay  stress  upon  them  is  to 
reduce  forgiveness  to  an  empty  name.  Yet,  whatever 
may  have  been  the  view  taken  by  the  general  body  of 
the  people  belonging  to  the  Eastern  Cliurch,  this  was 
certainly  the  case  as  regards  "  scientific  "  theology.  Not 
that  the  term  judgment  was  no  longer  employed,  but  it 
was  robbed  of  its  real  significance.  In  his  conception 
of  the  consummation  of  being,  it  is  unfortunate  that 
Orio-en  so  frequently  fails  to  distinguish  between  the 
close  of  the  present  world  and  the  close  of  all  things. 
Again  and  again  the  reader  is  confused  by  this  mixing 
up  of  ideas  belonging  to  two  separate  categories.  A 
distinct  delineation  of  perfect  life  in  absolute  repose 
is  perhaps  beyond  the  resources  of  human  thought 
and  lano-uaofe.  Another  criticism  to  which,  ever  since 
Jerome's  day,  this  part  of  Origen's  system  has  been 
exposed,  is  that  the  hope  of  final  harmony  is  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  doctrine  of  free  will.  If  in  the  future 
life  the  will  is  still  entirely  free,  what  security  is  there 


REDEMPTION  AND   RESTORATION      211 

that  tliifs  "  final  restoration  "  will  bo  final  ?  The  created 
spirit  may  fall  again  as  it  fell  before,  and  under  such 
conditions  tliere  may  be  a  perpetual  process  of  alternate 
falling  and  rising,  which  after  the  lapse  of  countless 
ages  leaves  the  end  as  far  off  as  ever.  This  objection 
may  be  logically  sound,  yet  it  is  unfair  to  Origen,  and 
misrepresents  his  meaning.  Without  in  the  slightest 
degi'ee  infringing  upon  the  inalienable  liberty  of 
rational  creatures,  and  granting  that  the  soul  is  free  to 
rebel  as  long  as  it  chooses,  we  may  yet  surely  with 
reason  decline  to  infer  from  our  observation  of  tliis 
short  life  that  it  will  be  eternally  obdurate. 

Such,  then,  in  brief  outline,  is  the  system  of  Origen. 
It  has  been  described  by  one  modern  writer  as  "  sub- 
lime," ^  and  by  another  as  "  a  precious  repertory  of 
profound  thought."  ^  Characterised  by  great  boldness 
and  originalitj',  it  certainly  forms  the  high-water  mark 
of  Christian  thought  in  that  fresh  and  formative  period. 
It  was  also  calculated  to  exert  a  healing  influence  in 
view  of  the  antagonisms  then  abroad.  Origen  was 
opposed  alike  to  the  unreasonable  rejection  of  human 
knowledge  so  common  in  the  Church  of  that  age,  and 
to  the  arbitrary  use  made  of  it  by  the  Gnostics ;  and 
although  he  erred  no  doubt  in  not  sufiiciently  sifting 
what  he  appropriated  from  Greek  speculative  philo- 
sophy, it  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  he  writes  in  no 
hidebound  spirit  of  dogmatism.  Where  divergent  views 
are  irreconcilable,  the  reader  is  invited  to  choose 
between  them.  If,  moreover,  his  religious  philosophy 
seeks  to  focus  and  present  in  complete  form  the 
scientific  knowledge  of  his  time,  it  makes  no  pretension 
'  PressensS.  ^  Redepenning. 


212     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

to  be  anything  beyond  an  honest  and  reverent  attempt 
to  arrive  at  a  truly  spiritual  conception  of  Christianity. 
He  was  a  pioneer,  and  ought  to  be  judged  as  such. 
Yet  he  was  far  more  than  a  pioneer.  "  Orthodox 
theology  of  all  creeds  has  never  yet  advanced  beyond 
the  circle  first  mapped  out  by  his  mind."^  Within  the 
sphere  of  Christian  dogma  he  was  the  first,  and  he  has 
been  the  only  independent,  builder.  Even  Augustine 
and  the  Reformers  (Luther,  Calvin,  etc.),  the  only  other 
t}q)ical  builders  in  the  history  of  dogma,  never  aimed 
at  being  anything  more  than  vcbuilders.  Much  of 
Origen's  speculative  thinking,  which  the  Church  was 
constrained  to  accept,  has  been  indissolubly  bound  up 
with  the  simple  faith  itself,  and  the  rule  of  faith  has 
thus  gradually  assumed  a  more  philosophic  aspect. 
If  the  Cliurcli  has  outgi'own  many  of  his  modes  of 
doctrinal  statement,  his  beautiful  and  ardent  spirit  will 
be  a  source  of  inspiration  to  her  so  long  as  the  world 
endures. 

^  Harnack,  History  of  Dogma,  ii.  p.  334. 


CHAPTER    IX 

Successors  of  Origen 

In  one  sense  Origen  had  no  successor.  Nature  is  not 
so  prolific  in  men  of  his  moral  and  intellectual  stature 
as  to  keep  up  an  unbroken  apostolical  succession  of 
this  sort.  Those  choice  spirits  that  tower  like  Alpine 
peaks  above  the  general  level  of  humanity  appear  only 
at  intervals  upon  the  stage  of  history.  They  are  indeed 
"  the  world's  epoch-makers,"  the  uncrowned  kings  of 
learning,  thought,  and  science.  Origen  is  undoubtedly 
entitled  to  a  place  amongst  these  giant  souls.  What 
Carljde  says  of  Frederick  the  Great  may  with  still 
more  fitness  be  said  of  him,  "  his  movements  were 
polar."  No  one  can  study  his  life  and  writings  without 
being  impressed  with  the  greatness  of  his  personality 
and  the  versatility  of  his  genius.  His  "woik  in  any 
single  department  of  theological  study  would  have 
brought  him  fame,  but  he  excelled  in  all  departments. 
He  was  the  founder  of  scientific  theology,  the  pioneer! 
of  a  reverent  criticism,  the  champion  of  free  and  un- 
restricted investigation,  and  a  bold  speculative  thinker ; 
but  he  was  also  at  the  same  time  a  great  Christian 
preacher,  a  believing  expositor,  a  devotional  writer,  \ 
and  an  orthodox  traditionalist.  All  parties  drew 
material   from    his   writings,   and    the    champions   of 


2  14     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

conflicting  schools  of  thought  claimed  him  with  equal 
confidence  for  their  side.  This  was  perhaps  partly  due 
to  the  fact  that  "  on  many  subjects  tlie  opinions  of 
Origen  resemble  the  moving  statues  of  Dtedalus, 
now  here,  now  there ;  they  are  not  to  be  fixed  on  a 
pedestal  and  identified  by  a  name  " ;  ^  but,  apart  from 
the  extent  to  which  his  inconsistencies  may  be  ex- 
plained by  the  distinction  he  made  between  exoteric 
and  esoteric  teaching,  it  is  absurd  to  judge  him  by  the 
rigid  dogmatic  standard  of  modern  theology.  Due 
allowance  must  be  made  for  the  fact  that  he  lived  in 
an  age  of  freedom  when  as  yet  Christian  belief  was  in 
a  more  or  less  fluid  condition,  and  tradition  was  in  the 
course  of  formation.  Only  when  we  regard  him  not  in 
the  light  of  later  dogmatic  opinion,  but  in  that  of  one 
who  furnished  many  stones  for  the  future  ecUtice  of 
Christian  thought,  can  we  possibly  do  justice  to  Origen. 
[Here  suffice  it  to  recognise  that  for  long  he  was  the 
I  dominating  force  in  the  theological  world ;  that  all 
subsequent  theology  has  been  largely  shaped  by  liim  ; 
and  that  even  when  every  deduction  has  been  made 
for  his  errors,  he  must  still,  as  regards  spirit  and 
method,  take  rank  as  the  ideal  Christian  theologian. 
But  if  in  respect  of  genius  and  influence  Origen  had 
no  immediate  successors,  either  at  Alexandria  or  else- 
where, there  were  not  wanting  those  upon  whom  to  a 
certain  extent  his  mantle  had  fallen,  and  who,  as  they 
^  were  able,  continued  to  propagate  his  principles.  No 
fewer  than  seven  teachers  followed  him  in  direct 
succession  as  presidents  of  the  Catechetical  School, 
namely,  Heraclas,  Dionysius,  Pierius,  Theognostus, 
Peter  the  Martyr,  Didymus,  and  Kliodon.     Although 

'  K.  A.  N'aughan,  T!ssmjs  ami  Ilnnaiim,  vol.  i.  p.  31. 


SUCCESSORS  OF  ORIGEN  215 

all  of  them  were  in  sympathy  with  Origen's  philosophy 
— this  Avas  true  eveu  of  Peter  the  Martyr,  who  made 
certain  corrections  upon  Origen's  system  where  he 
considered  its  conclusions  inconsistent  with  the  rule  of 
faith — the  school  seems  to  have  made  little  headway 
after  the  disappearance  of  the  great  master  himself. 
Indeed  the  tide,  instead  of  flowing,  began  to  ebb,  and 
after  the  time  of  Theognostus  its  adherents  were 
obliged  to  assume  the  defensive.  Partly  this  was  due 
to  the  rival  attractions  of  Neoplatonism,  which  at  the 
commencement  of  the  fourth  century  became  the  pre- 
vailing philosophy  in  Christian  as  well  as  in  pagan 
circles,  and  partly  to  the  circumstance  that  the  Church 
was  wliolly  engrossed  with  debates  upon  one  particular 
subject — that  of  the  Trinity,  and  could  not  give  a 
thought  to  the  elaborate  philosophy  of  Origenism. 

It  is  evident  that  Origen's  influence  in  Alexandria 
was  not  extinguished,  or  even  diminished,  by  his  con- 
demnation at  the  hand  of  Demetrius.  On  the  death 
of  the  latter,  Heraclas,  the  friend  and  pupil  of  the 
exiled  teacher,  was  chosen  bishop.  This  was  the 
reply  of  the  Eastern  Church  to  the  unworthy  treat- 
ment meted  out  to  Origfen,  and  a  sio;nificant  connnent 
upon  the  exclusion  of  presbyters  from  the  synod  con- 
vened to  pronounce  sentence  against  him.  Prior  to 
his  elevation  to  tlic  leading  Egyptian  See,  Heraclas  had 
acted,  first  as  colleague,  then  as  successor,  to  Origen  in 
the  Catechetical  School ;  and  when  the  latter  went  into 
exile,  it  must  have  been  some  mitigation  of  his  sorrow 
to  reflect  that  the  work  he  loved  was  in  safe  hands. 
Of  the  actual  teaching  of  Heraclas,  however,  we  possess 
no  details.     He  died  in  a.d.  249. 

When  Heraclas  became  bishop,  he  was  succeeded  as 


2i6     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

liead  of  tlic  titiining  school  by  Dionysius  (Alexandrinus), 
perhaps  the  most  learned,  and  certainly  not  the  least 
enthusiastic,  of  Origen's  disciples.  Distinctly  inferior 
to  him  in  speculative  power,  there  is  no  evidence  to 
show  that  he  developed  in  any  important  respect  the 
teaching  of  his  master.  He  was  i-aiscd  to  the  bishopric 
of  Alexandria  in  the  year  248,  and  died  in  2G5. 
Without  exceptional  gifts  as  a  professor  of  theology, 
he  was  undeniably  a  rare  success  in  the  episcopate. 
His  ecclesiastical  leadership  was  characterised  by  much 
wisdom,  and  even  in  his  own  time  won  for  him  the 
title  of  the  Great.  Calm  and  coui-ageous,  gentle  and 
generous,  tirm  and  faithful,  he  possessed  that  i^eculiar 
combination  of  (jualitios  which  go  to  the  making  of  an 
ideal  Church  ruler.  No  prominent  ecclesiastic  ever  had 
less  of  the  implacable,  dictatorial,  or  official  spirit. 
Amid  the  many  controversies,  doctrinal  and  ecclesi- 
astical, in  M'hich  he  was  called  upon  to  take  part,  he 
bore  himself  with  splendid  moderation  and  unfailing 
brotherliness.  While  frankly  contending  for  what  he 
believed  to  be  the  right,  he  alwaj^s  favoured  free  dis- 
cussion, and  never  was  guilty  of  anytliing  approaching 
to  hierarchical  assumption.  It  was  by  the  path  of  free 
investigation  that  he  himself  had  been  convinced  of 
the  tnith  of  the  gospel ;  and  to  this  princij)le  he 
adhered  alike  through  good  report  and  bad,  refusing 
to  condemn  what  he  had  not  read,  even  when  less 
scrupulous  persons  represented  to  him  that  the  perusal 
of  so  many  heretical  writings  might  seriously  injure 
his  own  soul.  He  would  have  scorned  to  use  against 
an  opponent  the  convenient  weapon  of  excommunica- 
tion. So  far  from  anathematising  those  who  held 
millcnarian    views,   he    held   a   protracted    conference 


SUCCESSORS  OF  ORIGEN  217 

with  them,  and  expressed  his  love  for  Nepos  their 
leader;  and  wlieii  writing  to  Novatiis  tlic  Schismatic 
he  was  careful  to  call  him  "brother."  His  life,  in  short, 
is  a  notable  illustration  of  the  far-reaching  influence 
of  a  conciliatory  and  self-denying  spirit. 

From  fragments  of  a  work  written  by  Dionysius 
after  the  death  of  Nepos  on  the  millenarian  question, 
a  work  in  whicli  he  argues  against  the  genuineness 
of  the  Book  of  Revelation,  it  is  clear  that  his  ability 
as  a  critic  was  of  no  mean  order,  although  in  combat- 
ing error  he  seems  to  have  allowed  his  zeal  sometimes 
to  outrun  his  discretion,  and  so  to  have  fallen  into 
error  liimself.  The  same  thing  is  true  with  regard  to 
his  contending  against  Sabellianism,  which  found  favour 
with  the  bishops  of  Egypt:  in  his  eagerness  he  uses 
lanjjuaii:e  which  amounts  to  a  subordinationist  denial 
of  the  unity  of  the  three  Persons  in  the  Godliead. 
"  The  Son  of  God,"  he  says,  "  is  a  creature  born  of  God, 
and  not  identical  with  Him  in  nature.  In  substance 
He  differs  from  the  Father  as  does  the  husbandman 
from  the  vine,  and  the  shipwriglit  from  his  boat. 
Furthermore,  as  a  creature  the  Son  did  not  exist  before 
His  creation."  ^  But  when,  in  answer  to  a  complaint 
addressed  to  him  by  the  bishops  of  Libya,  Dionysius 
of  Rome  issued  a  treatise  in  wliich  he  trenchantly 
exposed  the  erroneous  expressions  employed  by  the 
Alexandrian  bishop,  the  latter,  while  endeavouring  to 
explain  the  assertions  to  which  exception  had  been 
taken,  practically  withdrew  what  he  had  so  unad- 
visedl}'^  spoken.  It  is  not  quite  clear  what  was  his 
precise  position  with  reference  to  the  great  dogmatic 
question  of  his  age,  but  he  appears  to  have  occupied  a 
^  Atlianasius,  Dc  Sententia  Dionysii,  c.  4. 


21 8     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

standpoint  midway  betAveen  tlie  Unitarianism  of  Alius 
and  the  Trinitarianism  of  Athanasius. 

Tlic  behaviour  of  Dionysius  during  the  Decian 
persecution  was  singular!}'-  dignified,  prudent,  and 
brave.  A  troop  of  soldiers  sent  to  seize  him  scoured 
the  neighbourhood,  leaving  unsearched  only  his  own 
house,  where  for  four  days  he  placidly  awaited  them. 
Having  then  shown  himself  out  of  doors  he  was 
arrested,  only  to  be  speedily  liberated  by  a  band  of 
Christians  whom  he  vainly  besought  to  allow  him  to 
secure  the  martyr's  crown.  He  knew  nothing  of  the 
craven  spirit  displayed  many  centuries  later  by 
Cranmer.  From  the  hidden  fastnesses  of  tlie  Libyan 
desert  he  controlled  the  affairs  of  his  Church  until  the 
death  of  Decius.  Driven  again  into  exile  under 
Valerian,  because  of  his  unflinching  testimony  to 
Christian  truth,  he  became  the  herald  of  the  gospel 
in  various  quarters.  The  accession  of  Gallienus  in 
260  reopened  the  way  for  the  return  of  Dionysius  to 
Alexandria,  where  his  exertions  during  a  time  of 
pestilence  exhausted  the  energies  of  an  outworn  frame 
and  hastened  his  death.  He  remained  true  throughout 
to  the  spiritualism  of  Origen,  his  indebtedness  to  whom 
he  was  always  proud  to  acknowledge ;  and  when  his 
beloved  master  was  imprisoned,  under  the  Decian 
persecution,  he  wrote  to  him  a  letter  of  consolation. 

In  the  direction  of  the  school  of  catechists  Dionysius 
was  followed  by  Pierius,  an  eloquent  teacher,  who  was 
called  "  a  second  Origen."  He  led  an  ascetic  life,  and 
wrote  a  commentary  on  Hosea ;  but  with  the  exception 
of  a  few  fragmejits  preserved  by  Photius  we  know 
nothing  of  his  teaching.  It  was  as  a  pupil  of  Pierius 
that    Pamphilus    imbibed    his    strong    admiration    for 


SUCCESSORS  OF  ORIGEN  219 

Origen's  theology.  Regarding  the  doctrine  of  Theo- 
gnostus,  liis  immediate  successor,  we  are  also  compara- 
tivel}'  ignorant.  Photius  criticises  his  views,  but  lauds 
liis  eloquence ;  while  Athanasius  speaks  highly  of  him 
as  a  man  of  culture  who  was  not  satisfied  with  giving 
an  exposition  of  dogma,  but  followed  Origen's  plan  of 
suggesting  questions  for  debate.  His  great  dogmatic 
work  {Hypotyposes),  unliappily  no  longer  extant,  was 
not,  however,  like  Origen's,  written  in  sections,  each 
dealing  with  the  whole  under  reference  to  one  ruling 
tliouglit,  but  so  as  to  form  one  connected  and  consecu- 
tive exposition.  In  adopting  this  method  he  anticipated 
all  future  workers  in  the  same  field.  From  some  re- 
maining fragments  of  his  work  it  is  clear  that  he 
adhered  closely  to  Origen  in  liis  theological  position. 
This  appears  particularly  from  his  exposition  of  the 
sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  founded  on  the 
view  that  as  the  sphere  of  the  Spirit  extended  only  to 
the  perfect,  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  the  sin 
of  the  perfect,  Avas  unpardonable.  Peter,  the  next 
president,  was  raised  to  the  bishopric  of  Alexandria  in 
recognition  of  his  renown  as  an  ascetic,  but  was  cut  off 
in  the  Decian  persecution  after  three  years'  tenure  of 
that  office.  He  asserted  the  complete  humanity  of 
Christ,  denied  the  pre-existence  of  the  soul,  and 
denounced  the  tenet  of  a  preniundane  fall  as  a  "  pre- 
cept of  Greek  philosophy  which  is  foreign  and  alien  to 
those  who  desire  to  live  piously  in  Christ."  But 
although  distinctly  opposed  to  Origen  upon  these 
points,  it  was  his  aim  rather  to  correct  than  to 
repudiate  the  doctrines  of  the  master.  So  far  as  they 
were  in  keeping  with  the  rule  of  faith,  he  taught  and 
upheld  them. 


2  20     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

DidynuiH,  wlio  also  acted  as  catechist  in  Alexandria, 
was  a  prolific  author  in  spite  of  his  almost  lifelong 
blindness,  but  few  of  his  works  are  extant.  Like  liis 
predecessors,  he  was  strong  in  his  admiration  for 
Origen,  but  under  the  pressure  of  the  influences  of  his 
time  he  w^as  induced  to  tone  down  the  doctrines  of  the 
De  Principiis,  especially  those  regarding  the  Trinity, 
until  his  theology  was  virtually  brought  into  line  with 
the  prevailing  orthodoxy,  which  was  soon,  by  means  of 
a^cumenical  councils,  to  gag  the  freedom  of  belief.  Of 
Rhodon,  the  last  of  the  superintendents  mentioned  in 
connection  with  the  Catechetical  School,  nothing  is 
known  to  us  but  the  name. 

Li  this  connection  there  remains  to  be  mentioned  the 
great  name  of  Athanasius.  Born  at  Alexandria  in  296, 
and  educated  doubtless  at  the  Catechetical  School,  he 
became  the  most  prominent  Church  leader  of  his  time. 
In  consideration  of  his  services  against  Arianism,  he 
was  venerated  as  "  the  father  of  orthodoxy."  His  great 
talents  and  learning,  his  clear  insight  and  his  earnest 
spirit,  his  indomitable  energy  and  strength  of  will,  his 
liumble  faith  and  dauntless  courage,  formed  a  rare 
combination  of  qualities,  and  one  by  means  of  which  he 
was  fitted  to  play  a  most  distinguished  part  in  the 
history  of  the  Christian  Church.  Although  his  gifts 
lay  in  the  direction  of  ecclesiastical  statesmanship 
rather  than  in  that  of  speculative  thought,  his  is 
essentially  a  Greek  mind — subtle,  flexible,  and  philo- 
sophical. In  the  line  of  Greek  theologians  he  ranks 
}iext  to  Origen  in  importance,  if  not  in  direct  chrono- 
logical succession.  None  of  those  who  lived  in  the 
intervening  century  have  so  indelibly  left  their  mark 
upon  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the  Church  as  he  has. 


SUCCESSORS  OF  ORIGEN  221 

Prior  to  tlie  commencement  of  tlic  Aiian  controversy 
in  819,  AthanasiuH  wrote  two  short  apologetical  treatises 
under  the  titles  Against  the  Gentiles  and  On  the  Incar- 
nation of  the  Word.  In  the  former  he  denies  the 
assertion  of  Greek  polytheists,  that  intermediary  deities 
are  necessary  to  the  oovernment  of  the  world,  and 
maintains  tlie  divine  immanence  in  creation ;  in  the 
hitter  he  argues  that  this  principle  lends  confirmation 
to  the  fact  of  the  incarnation,  seeing  that  it  is  just  as 
reasonable  that  God  should  dwell  in  a  single  man  as 
that  He  sliould  dwell  in  the  world.  Through  the 
incarnation  Christ  as  the  God-Man  becomes  the  medium 
by  wliich  God  acts  upon  the  universal  life,  and  in  His 
person  the  wliole  human  race  has  been  redeemed  and 
raised  even  to  the  height  of  deification.  "  As  when  a 
mighty  king  entering  some  great  city,  although  he 
occupies  but  one  of  its  houses,  positively  confers  great 
honour  upon  the  whole  city,  and  no  enemy  or  robber 
any  longer  throws  it  into  confusion  by  his  assaults,  but 
on  account  of  the  presence  of  the  king  in  one  of  its 
houses,  the  city  is  rather  thought  worthy  of  being- 
guarded  with  the  greatest  care ;  so  also  is  it  in  the 
case  of  Him  who  is  Lord  over  all.  For  when  He  came 
into  our  country  and  dwelt  in  the  body  of  one  like 
ourselves,  thenceforth  every  plot  of  the  enemy  against 
mankind  was  defeated,  and  the  corruption  of  death 
that  formerly  operated  to  destroy  men  lost  its  power."  ^ 

It  was  as  archdeacon  of  Alexandria  that  Athanasius 
accompanied  his  bishop  (Alexander)  to  the  Council  of 
Nicaea  in  825.  Although  not  a  regular  member,  he 
seems  to  have  been  permitted  to  share  in  its  discussions. 
He  was  strongly  opposed  to  the  teaching  of  Arius,  who, 
1  Be  Incur,  c.  9. 


222      ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

as  a  son  of  Antiocli,  and  even  more  nnder  the  influence 
of  Orientalism  than  of  Hellenism,  conceived  of  God  as 
the  absolutely  transcendent,  for  whom  no  contact  with 
the  world  or  witli  man  was  possible.  On  such  a  view 
of  Deity  Arius  had  to  deny  the  incarnation.  Rejecting 
the  idea  of  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son,  he  taught 
that  He  had  been  created  by  the  Father  in  order  to  the 
creation  of  the  world  through  Him.  Christ  therefore 
he  regarded  as  higher  than  man  but  inferior  to  God, 
and  the  revelation  made  by  Him  not  as  the  disclosure 
of  the  divine  character,  but  as  an  ethical  code  for  the 
guidance  of  conduct.  Athanasius,  on  the  other  hand, 
contended  that  the  Father  and  the  Son  participate  alike 
in  the  divine  essence,  and  that  the  Son  is  coequal  with 
the  Father.  Tlie  decision  of  the  Nicsean  Council  was 
against  Arius,  who  was  excommunicated.  Alexander 
died  shortly  after  his  return  from  Nicjea  to  the  labours 
of  his  own  diocese,  and  at  the  early  age  of  thirty 
Athanasius  found  himself  installed  as  his  successor. 
The  morning  of  his  episcopate  seems  to  have  dawned 
peacefully  enough,  but  long  ere  noon  dark  storm- 
clouds  filled  the  sky,  and  continued  to  loom  overhead 
until  the  sunset  was  at  hand. 

His  life  and  writings  were  really  devoted  to  one 
great  cause — the  fight  against  Arianism.  It  is  a  very 
significant  commentary  upon  the  strenuousness  with 
which  he  maintained  the  conflict,  that  nearly  one  half 
of  the  forty-five  years  of  his  episcopate  should  have 
been  spent  in  exile.  Deposed  and  banished  by  Con- 
stantine  i.  to  Gaul,  he  was  restored  to  his  flock  by 
Constantine  ii.,  only  to  be  expelled  once  more  by 
Constantius,  another  son  of  the  elder  Constantine,  who 
reigned  in  the  East.     In  the  latter  case  a  Cappadocian, 


SUCCESSORS  OF  ORIGEN  223 

Gregory  by  name,  was  by  force  of  arms  installed  in 
the  office  of  the  uncompromisintj  defender  of  the  faith. 
But  Athanasius  appealed  to  Home,  which  so  warmly 
espoused  his  cause  that  a  regular  rupture  took  place 
between  the  Eastern  and  the  Western  Church.  At  the 
Council  of  Sardica  in  343  the  Eastern  bishops  declined 
to  confer  with  their  compeers  of  the  West,  because  the 
latter  were  resolved  upon  ignoring  the  sentence  of 
deposition  that  had  been  pronounced  against  Athan- 
asius. Meanwhile,  the  intruded  bishop,  Gregory,  a  man 
of  harsh  and  tj^rannical  spirit,  ha\'ing  been  murdered 
by  an  infuriated  Alexandrian  mob,  the  emperor  con- 
sented to  the  return  of  the  much-loved  bishop.  This 
took  place  amid  great  public  rejoicing  in  the  year  346. 
According  to  Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  the  inhabitants 
went  streaming  forth  "  like  another  Nile  "  to  welcome 
him.  For  a  whole  decade  Athanasius  continued  at  his 
post,  but  in  the  year  356,  owing  to  the  machinations  of 
the  Arian  party,  he  was  condemned  at  the  Council  of 
Milan,  while  those  bishops  who  were  friendly  to  him 
were  driven  into  exile.  That  his  own  life  was  once 
more  in  jeopardy  was  proved  by  the  intrusion  of  an 
armed  band  into  a  church  where  he  was  conducting 
service.  He  succeeded,  however,  in  escaping  to  the 
wilds  of  the  Egyptian  desert,  where  he  composed  his 
Discourses  against  ihe  Avians.  Six  years  later,  the 
death  of  Constantius  and  the  accession  of  Julian 
enabled  Athanasius  to  return  to  his  See.  But  the 
success  of  the  Christian  bishop  soon  proved  distasteful 
to  an  emperor  who  desired  the  supremacy  of  paganism, 
and  on  the  pretext  that  he  acted  as  a  disturbing 
influence,  Athanasius  was  banished  yet  again.  Within 
the  year,  however,  Julian  died,  and  the  next  emperor. 


224     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK   THEOLOGY 

Jovian,  was  prepared  to  tolei'ate  the  Arians  and  the 
Nicene  party  alike.  Accordingly,  Athanasius  again 
took  up  liis  episcopal  duties,  but  under  Valens  was  once 
more  obliged  to  flee.  This  was  his  last  period  of  exile. 
After  four  months'  absence  he  was  recalled,  and  from 
this  date  (366)  ho  carried  on  the  manifold  work  of  his 
diocese  without  further  molestation.  He  laboured  in- 
cessantly until  his  death  in  373,  manifesting  to  the  last 
that  intrepid  spirit  which  has  received  fit  commemora- 
tion in  the  sajnug,  Atlianasius  contra  inundam. 

The  significance  of  Athanasius  for  theology  lies  in 
the  leading  part  which  he  took  in  the  great  contro- 
versy regarding  the  Trinity.  On  this  subject  three 
views  were  propounded  and  discussed  with  the  keenest 
dialectic  subtlety.  Christ  was  declared  by  some  to  be 
of  a  different  essence  from  the  Father,  b}^  others  to  be 
of  a  similar  essence,  and  by  others  still  to  be  of  the 
same  essence.  The  last  was  the  view  espoused  by 
Athanasius,  and  that  it  ultimately  triumphed  was 
largel}'  due  to  his  strenuous  advocacy.  Origen's  idea 
of  an  economic  and  relative  trinit}''  he  discarded  in 
favour  of  the  immanent  and  absolute  trinitj'. 

Origen's  influence,  however,  was  by  no  means  limited 
to  Alexandria ;  it  was  equally  strong  in  Arabia, 
Palestine,  and  Asia  Minor.  He  was  on  terms  of 
intimate  friendship  with  such  men  as  Theoktistus 
bishop  of  Caesarea,  and  Alexander,  bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem, who  not  only  opened  to  him  their  pulpits,  but 
venerated  him  as  their  master ;  Firmilian,  bishop  of 
Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  who  sheltered  him  during  the 
persecution  under  Maximin  the  Thracian ;  and  Julius 
Africanus,  bishop  of  Nicopolis,  whose  correspondence 
with  him  regarding  the  authenticity  of  the  History  of 


SUCCESSORS  OF  ORIGEN  225 

Susannah  has  been  preserved.^  But  the  most  clis- 
tingui.shed  of  Ori<;-cii's  disciples  in  Asia  was  Gregory 
Tliaumaturgiis,  to  whose  touching  panegyric  upon  his 
master  we  have  ah-eady  referred.  Originally  he  bore 
the  name  of  Theodorus,  and  belonged  to  a  noble  and 
wealthy  heathen  family  of  Neocaesarea  in  Pontus. 
His  parents  had  chosen  for  him  the  profession  of  an 
advocate,  and  he  became  a  diligent  student  of  Roman 
law.  But  his  accidental  meeting  with  Origen  under 
the  circumstances  mentioned  ^  changed  the  whole 
current  of  his  life,  and  led  him  to  consecrate  his 
energies  to  higher  ends.  That  great  master,  perceiving 
him  to  be  a  youth  of  talent,  set  himself  to  draw  out 
his  thinking  powers,  imbued  him  with  the  spirit  of  free 
investigation,  and  initiated  him  into  the  sweets  of 
intellect.  A  course  of  geometry  and  astronomy,  so  far 
as  calculated  to  explain  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  and  one 
of  Greek  philosophy,  in  which  its  various  systems  were 
made  to  cast  their  mites  into  the  treasury  of  truth,  was 
followed  by  instruction  in  the  revealed  oracles  of  God. 
The  earnest  study  of  Holy  Scripture,  with  Origen  as 
interpreter,  opened  up  to  Gregory's  vision  a  new  and 
higher  world,  and  in  his  parting  address  to  his  beloved 
teacher  he  thanks  "that  God  who  conducted  us  to 
thee."  It  was  with  most  poignant  regret  that  he 
separated  himself  from  one  to  whom  his  soul  was  knit, 
as  was  the  soul  of  Jonathan  to  that  of  David.  But  he 
did  so  in  the  consciousness  that  he  went  forth  bearino- 
as  a  lasting  possession  those  seeds  of  truth  which  he 
had  received  from  him,  and  in  the  hope  that  God  would 
permit  him  to  return  to  him,  bringing  with  him  the 
fruits  and  sheaves  yielded  by  those  seeds.     In  a  letter 

^  See  above,  p.  58  f.  ^  Sy^  above,  p.  56. 

15 


226     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

still  extant  Origen  expresses  his  conviction  that 
Gregory's  natural  abilities  were  such  as  to  ensure 
him  success  cither  as  a  Roman  lawyer  or  as  a  professor 
of  Greek  pliilosophy,  but  at  the  same  time  intimates 
liis  desire  that  he  should  devote  his  talents  to  Chris- 
tianity, and  employ  his  scientific  knowledge  in  the 
service  of  theology,  so  as  to  make  everything  else 
subserve  the  divine  calling.  He  exhorts  him  to  bend 
all  his  energies  in  the  direction  of  biblical  study,  and 
prayerfully  to  investigate  the  sense  of  the  sacred  word, 
which  so  many  have  missed. 

Sometime  after  his  return  to  his  own  country 
Gregory  was,  by  the  joint  influence  of  Origen  and 
Phsedimus,  bishop  of  Amasia,  literally  dragged  from  his 
life  of  quiet  asceticism,  and  installed  as  bishop  of  his 
own  town  of  Neocsesarea,  an  office  which  he  held  and 
adorned  for  about  thirty  years.  The  legendary  element 
has  unfortunately  entered  largely  into  the  story  of  his 
episcopate,  and  in  the  account  of  his  life  and  labours 
composed  by  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  the  distance  of  a  century 
lent  so  much  enchantment  to  the  view  that  the  result 
is  not  a  sober  narrative  of  facts,  but  a  highly  coloured 
portrait  of  a  Christian  wizard  at  whose  word  the  rocks 
are  moved  and  the  plague  ravages  the  city.  But,  apart 
from  such  spurious  fables,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt 
that  Gregory  was  a  conspicuously  pious  and  influential 
servant  of  the  Church.  This  is  the  real  meaning  of  the 
tradition  that  at  his  death  the  number  of  pagans 
in  Neocaesarea  was  only  seventeen,  or  precisely  the 
number  of  Christians  resident  there  when  he  assumed 
the  bishopric.  It  is  a  singular  testimony  to  his  worth, 
that,  notwithstanding  the  interruption  of  his  work 
caused  by  the  Decian  persecution,   and  the   debasing 


SUCCESSORS  OF  ORIGEN  227 

iiiUuenccs  connected  with  an  invasion  of  the  Goths,  lie 
slioukl  have  so  impressed  liimself  as  a  moral  force  upon 
the  men  oi"  his  time.  In  his  general  views  upon  the 
Trinity  and  the  Person  of  Christ  Gregory's  position 
may  be  described  as  Origenistic.  But,  in  face  of  a 
decided  tendency  towards  a  polytheistic  conception  of 
the  Trinity,  he  felt  constrained  to  lay  special  stress  on 
the  unity  of  God.  According  to  Basil,  he  spoke  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son  as  "two  in  thought,  but  one  in 
substance  " ;  at  any  rate  he  was  accused  of  Sabellianism. 
Although  his  gifts  w'ere  administrative  rather  than 
speculative,  he  took  his  fair  share  in  the  doctrinal  con- 
troversies of  the  period,  and  won  for  liimself  an  assured 
place  among  the  leading  Fathers  of  the  Church.  Besides 
his  Panegyric  upon  Origen,  he  wrote  what  Jerome 
styles  a  "  short  but  useful "  Paraphrase  of  Ecciesiastes, 
and  a  Canonical  Letter  dealing  with  the  exercise  of 
discipline  in  the  case  of  Christians  w^ho  had  abandoned 
the  faith  under  stress  of  persecution,  but  W' ere  desirous 
of  being  restored  to  Church  fellowship.  Gregory  died 
in  270,  so  that  he  survived  Origen  by  about  seventeen 
years. 


CHAPTER    X 

Historical     Services,    general    Characteristics, 

AND    distinctive   DOCTRINAL    COMPLEXION   OF   THE 

Greek  Theology 

From  Justin  to  Gregory  the  Greek  Fathers  had  opposed 
the  Gnostics,  and  so  rescued  the  Church  from  being 
paganised.  It  was  through  their  conflict  with  Gnosti- 
cism that  they  first  became  theologians.  Ever  since 
the  days  of  St.  Paul  the  Church  had  produced  saints 
and  martyrs,  but  not  thinkers ;  the  task  of  the  Chris- 
tian had  been  to  love  God  and  his  neighbour,  but  not  to 
unravel  hard  questions  or  engage  in  bold  speculations. 
When,  however,  the  Gnostics  began  to  discuss  the 
deepest  problems  of  existence — the  nature  of  God,  the 
origin  of  evil,  the  redemption  of  the  world — the  Greek 
Fathers  were  compelled  to  formulate  their  own  theology 
in  reply  to  the  erroneous  views  that  were  being  dis- 
seminated. 

They  were  further  led  to  combat  the  frenzied  extra- 
vagances of  the  Montanists,  a  sect  claiming  to  have 
the  spirit  of  prophecy  in  active  operation  amongst  its 
adherents,  and  somewhat  resemblino;  the  Irvino-itcs  of  a 
later  time.  Montanism  had  its  rise  in  Phrygia,  but  its 
influence  extended  to  North  Africa,  Italy,  and  even 
Gaul.     Ecclesiastical   rather   than    doctrinal    questions 

228 


HISTORICAL  SERVICES  229 

underlay  the  movement.  The  disorders  which  St.  Paul 
rebukes  in  his  letters  to  the  Thessalonians  were  re- 
produced under  Montanistic  teaching,  which  placed  in 
the  forefront  the  nearness  of  Christ's  second  advent  in 
the  flesh.  The  movement  was  chiefly  a  protest  against 
the  growing  hierarchical  assumption  of  the  clergy.  It 
condcnnied  as  a  pure  figment  the  doctrine  of  apostolical 
succession,  which  was  first  formulated  by  Cyprian, 
bishop  of  Carthage.  The  Montanists  maintained  tliat 
Christ  had  no  successor  save  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  by 
way  of  emphasising  their  belief  that  in  His  com- 
munications to  men  the  Spirit  was  not  necessarily 
limited  to  the  clergy,  they  appear  to  have  found  their 
chosen  oracles  in  women  rather  than  in  men.  They 
had  certainly  some  reason  for  protesting  against  the 
encroaching  secularism  and  sacerdotalism  of  the  Church. 
But  they  soon  developed  a  proud  spirit  of  Pharisaic 
legalism.  While  standing  for  much  that  was  true, 
Montanism  contained  also  many  false  elements  which 
operated  as  seeds  of  dissolution.  More  especiall}^  it 
was  characterised  by  an  element  of  fanaticism ;  it  lacked 
the  virtue  of  self-restraint.  After  they  broke  with  the 
Church  the  Montanists  "  became  narrower  and  pettier 
in  their  conception  of  Christianity,"  ^  until  in  the 
fourth  century  their  conventicles  were  deserted  even  in 
the  land  of  their  origin.  Although  in  many  respects 
strictly  orthodox,  in  popular  estimation  they  were 
usually  regarded  as  equally  heretical  with  the  Gnostics. 
It  was  by  defeating  these  two  "  isms " — Gnosticism 
and  Montanism — that  the  Greek  Fathers  made  the 
"  Catholic  "  Church. 

They  also  overthrew  Chiliasm.     This  is  the  rather 
^  Haruack. 


230     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

inappropriate  name  given  to  the  ancient  Christian 
eschatology,  from  the  circumstance  tliat  one  of  its 
tenets  was  the  doctrine  of  the  millennium.  It  embraced, 
however,  many  other  features,  of  which  some  were 
fixed,  and  some  were  being  continually  modified.  Of 
the  latter  sort  were  the  ideas  about  the  Antichrist, 
and  about  the  place,  extent,  and  duration  of  Christ's 
glorious  kingdom.  After  the  decay  of  Montanism, 
Chiliastic  views  lost  caste,  so  to  speak,  and  were  de- 
nounced as  Jewish ;  and  the  early  Christian  hope  with 
respect  to  the  future  was  gradually  undermined  by  the 
speculative  mysticism  of  the  Alexandrians. 

Such  were  the  main  currents  of  contro\cisy  in  which 
the  Greek  theology  took  shape,  and  such  tlie  conditions 
amid  which  it  rendered  eficctive  and  lasting  service  to 
Christianity.  A  few  words  will  suffice  to  indicate  its 
more  general  characteristics.  As  we  have  already  seen, 
it  overdid  the  use  of  allegory  in  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  and  made  it  easy  to  discount  the  conclusions 
arrived  at  by  any  other  sort  of  exposition.  There  lay 
also  in  its  doctrine  of  reserve  a  source  of  potential 
mischief  which  has  oftener  than  once  in  the  histoiy 
of  the  Church  ceased  to  be  potential  and  become 
actual.  ]\Ioreover,  all  the  Greek  Fathers,  not  excepting 
Methodius  himself,  were  intellectualists ;  neither  Justin 
nor  any  of  his  successors  ever  renounced  philosophy  as 
did  the  teachers  of  the  Latin  Church.  But  while  it 
may  with  truth  be  said  that  they  were  too  intellectual, 
too  subtle,  and  that  they  developed  mind  at  the  expense 
of  heart,  they  were  thereby  saved  at  all  events  fi-om 
mawkish  sentimentality.  They  breathed  the  air  of 
intellectual  freedom,  and  their  waitings  are  healthy, 
breez}'',  and  manly.     Another  noteworthy  feature  of  the 


HISTORICAL  SERVICES  231 

Greek  tlicology  is  its  true  catholicity.  "As  the  soul 
is  the  principle  which  holds  the  body  together,  so 
Christians  hold  together  the  world  itself."  What  finer 
expression  could  we  have  of  the  idea  of  the  Church's 
worth  and  universal  mission  than  in  this  saying  from 
the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  penned  even  before  the  days  of 
Clement  and  Origen,  but  bearing  distinct  marks  of  the 
same  Hellenic  culture  that  influenced  them  ?  The 
writings  of  the  Greek  Fathers  are  further  marked  by  a 
high  moral  tone  and  a  deep  spiritualit}?- ;  in  this  respect 
they  are  fit  to  be  our  teachers  still.  We  may  note  also 
their  pronounced  humanitarianism,  and  their  unquench- 
able optimism,  which  was  really  part  of  their  creed. 
Believing  as  they  did  in  the  ultimate  restitution  of  all 
rational  beings,  and  unoppressed  with  thoughts  of  total 
depravity  or  eternal  punishment,  they  knew  no  morbid 
feeling  of  dread  or  despair,  and  were  as  joyous  in  spirit 
as  they  were  daring  in  thought.  Bright  and  in  some 
respects  truly  Christian  as  is  this  optimistic  vein  in 
the  Greek  patristic  writers,  there  is  another  side — the 
cschatological — from  which  it  appears  in  a  less  satis- 
factory light.  Their  conceptions  of  the  intermediate 
state  are  anything  but  clear  and  precise.  It  was  only 
the  final  goal  of  the  deification  of  humanity  that  they 
were  really  concerned  with ;  all  else  was  of  minor 
importance.  Thus  the  great  Christian  truth,  that  a 
time  will  arrive  when  at  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ 
every  one  shall  receive  according  to  his  deeds,  was 
releirated  to  the  backOTOund  as  a  mere  mode  of  re- 
demption,  one  of  the  "channels  through  which  it 
works."  Augustine,  on  tlie  other  hand,  sought  to 
emphasise  this  truth,  with  the  result  that  the  Western 
Church  continued  to  be  inspired  by  one  great  motive  to 


232     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

which  the  Eastern  Church  l)ecame  in  larije  measure 
indifferent — the  fear  of  the  Judge.  Closely  connected 
•with  the  certainty  of  the  judgment  is  the  sense  of  sin, 
whicli  was  also  much  stronger  in  the  Latin  Cluu'cli 
than  in  the  Greek.  The  latter  had  no  doctrine  of 
original  sin,  saw  no  such  schism  in  the  divine  nature  as 
to  require  the  appeasing  by  sacrifice  of  outraged  justice 
before  love  could  pardon,  and  gave  no  place  to  the  idea 
that  Christ  endured  sufferings  equal  in  significance  to 
the  eternal  sufferings  of  the  wliolc  human  race.  But 
when  complaints  are  made  of  the  deficient  sense  of  sin 
manifested  by  the  Greek  theologians,  it  would  pcrliaps 
be  fairer  to  speak  of  their  overmastering  appreciation 
of  Christ's  redemption.  That  this  charge,  although 
not  altogether  groundless,  is  ncvertlieless  more  ancient 
than  forcible,  is  sliown  by  the  fact  that  it  was  levelled 
by  Judaisers  against  the  Apostle  Paul  for  proclaiming 
tlic  doctrine  of  justification  bj^-  faith.  The  truth  is  that 
the  doctrine  of  grace  as  tauglit  in  the  Western  Church 
is  simply  the  Latin  substitute  for  the  Greek  principle  of 
the  indwelling  of  God  in  luimanity. 

It  is  tlie  Latin  conception  of  the  gospel  that  has 
been  embodied  in  the  traditional  creed  of  the  Western 
Church.  It  was  first  formulated  by  tlie  acute  and 
profound  mind  of  Augustine,  whose  writings  constitute 
an  epoch  in  theological  literature  and  thought.  Strongly 
favoured  by  Rome,  it  soon  impressed  itself  upon  the 
entire  West,  and  for  many  centuries  lias  presented 
the  appearance  of  an  impregnable  fortress.  Yet  it  is 
certainly  not  tlie  oldest  type  of  Christianity.  In  tlie 
history  of  Cliristian  tliought  tlio  Hellenistic  theology 
occupies  a  prior  place,  and  in  recent  times  many  have 
declared  it  to  be  based  upon  a  truer  pliilosophy  of  God 


HISTORICAL  SERVICES  233 

and  man.  The  very  fact  that  a  reversion  to  the  earlier 
conception  of  gospel  truth  should  have  been  seriously- 
advocated,  and  that  the  Augustinian  theology  should 
have  been  condemned  as  by  comparison  narrow  and 
pessimistic,  "  harsh  and  loveless,"  makes  it  doubly 
interesting  and  important  to  inquire  as  to  what  is 
doctrinally  distinctive  in  the  school  of  Origen.  It  will 
be  obvious  tliat  those  whose  motto  is  "  Back  to  the 
Greek  theology "  are  for  the  most  part  universalists. 
Their  whole  standpoint  necessarily  conflicts  with  the 
Augustinian  doctrines  of  total  depravity,  predestination, 
the  loss  of  freedom,  and  eternal  punishment,  and  is 
virtually  that  reflected  in  the  closing  lines  of  Tenny- 
son's In  Mcmoriam,  where  he  speaks  of 

"One  God,  one  law,  one  element, 
And  one  far-off  divine  event. 
To  which  the  whole  creation  moves." 

The  following  brief  outline  of  the  Hellenistic  position 
is  from  the  pen  of  one  of  its  champions :  "  In  the 
thought  of  Hellenism  a  profound  unity  underlies  all 
phenomena,  and  works  steadily  and  surely  towards 
the  elimination  of  all  discord  and  evil.  This  purpose, 
namely,  '  The  Restoration  of  all  things,'  is  clearly  re- 
vealed in  Holy  Scripture ;  this  larger  hope  or  certainty 
is  indeed  'the  glad  tidings  of  great  joy'  which  the 
gospel  promises.  The  agent  in  this  process  is  the 
immanent  Logos  manifested  in  the  flesh,  made  man  for 
us  and  for  our  salvation.  But  as  the  universe  is  really 
One,  the  work  of  the  Logos  cannot  be  confined  to  this 
earth ;  it  extends  to  the  entire  spiritual  world,  and 
is  eftoctive  wherever  the  logical,  i.e.  rational,  creature 
sins  and  suft'ers.     The  Incarnation  is  thus  the  cxprcs- 


234     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

sion  of  a  universal  purpose  of  unification,  education, 
restoration.  This  plan  may  be  traced  in  all  God's 
dealings  with  us.  His  "wrath  and  vengeance  are  really 
the  expressions  of  love  eternal.  Fire,  penalty,  judg- 
ment, are  but  moments  in  the  great  redemptive  process. 
The  resurrection  is  its  climax. 

"  In  the  Hellenistic  vocabulary,  such  Western  phrases 
as  imputation,  satisfaction,  substitution,  probation,  are 
wanting ;  sin,  however  grievous,  is  always  curable, 
because  residing  in  the  will,  and  not  penetrating  to  the 
nature  of  man.  While  the  ties  of  heredity  are  recog- 
nised, yet  infant  innocence  is  firmly  hold.  The  Church, 
if  not  technically,  is  yet  potentially  and  vitally  a 
synonym  for  the  whole  human  family.  The  crude 
absolutism  which  has  always  characterised  the  Latin 
ideal  of  God,  and  which  is  reflected  in  the  claims  of  the 
Pope  as  God's  vicegerent,  is  also  wanting  in  Hellenistic 
theology.  This  indeed  recognised  the  divine  sovereigntj^, 
but  it  is  the  supremacy  of  a  reasonable  and  loving 
Creator  and  Parent.  To  man  a  special  interest  and 
dignity  is  assigned,  stamped  as  he  is  indelibly  with  the 
divine  image,  a  child  of  the  All  Father,  a  pupil  whom 
the  Heavenly  Tutor  is  educating.  But  man  is  more 
than  this.  He  is  the  microcosm  or  mirror  of  the 
universe,  God's  representative  and  vicegerent,  a  common 
bond  and  centre  uniting  the  spiritual  and  sensible 
universe."  ^ 

We  quote  this  statement  not  only  on  account  of  its 
intrinsic  interest,  but  also  because  it  is  fair  to  let  the 
advocate  of  a  new  (if  likewise  old)  theology  speak  for 
liimself.  While  we  cannot  here  discuss  the  merits  of 
the  (|uestion  raised,  we  may  briefly  advert  to  the  three 
^  Allin,  llacc  and  Hclhjion,  Preface,  p.  7  ff. 


HISTORICAL  SERVICES  235 

great  pillars  on  wliich  the  Greek  theology  seems  to 
rest. 

The  first  is  the  immanence  of  God  in  the  universe. 
This  is  a  root  principle  with  far-reaching  consequences, 
for  in  theology  everything  must  ultimately  depend 
upon  our  conception  of  God.  History  and  experience 
go  to  show  that  there  are  two  fundamentally  different 
ways  of  regarding  Him.  He  may  be  viewed  as  dwell- 
ing within  His  creation,  or  as  transcendently  exalted 
above  it.  In  the  Mosaic  period  the  people  thought  of 
Him  as  dwelling  among  tliem  by  the  shechinah,  but  in 
the  later  days  of  post-exilic  Judaism  God  was  absolutely 
conceived  as  reimiini;  in  the  remote  heaven.  It  was 
the  latter  view  that  commended  itself  to  Latin  Chris- 
tianity. Augustine  found  it  dominant  in  the  Church 
at  the  time  of  his  conversion,  accepted  it  as  part  and 
parcel  of  the  divine  revelation,  and  defended  it  with  all 
the  resources  of  a  powerful  intellect.  The  history  of 
the  Christian  Church  resembles  that  of  the  Jewish  in 
so  far  as  it,  too,  shows  a  transition  from  the  one  stand- 
point to  the  other.  The  earlier  interpretation  of  Chris- 
tianity adopted  by  the  Greek  Fathers  and  rejected  by 
the  Western  Church  in  favour  of  a  theological  system 
of  which  the  transcendence  of  Deity  is  the  ruling 
principle,  was  based  upon  the  thought  of  the  divine 
immanence  in  creation  and  in  the  life  of  man.  In  the 
two  ways  of  looking  at  the  subject  is  reflected  the 
spirit  of  the  two  races  as  exhibited  in  their  respective 
mythologies.  While  for  the  Roman  the  gods  were 
distant  and  unfamiliar  beings,  for  the  Greek  they  were 
gracious  presences  ever  by  his  side.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  as  to  which  of  the  two  conceptions  of  Deity  is 
the  higher  and  more  worthy.     It  was  surely  a  retro- 


2  36     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

grade  step  for  tlic  Church  of  the  West  to  abandon  that 
of  the  Greek  theology  in  order  to  set  on  a  far  distant 
throne  Him  who  is  "  not  far  from  every  one  of  us,"  and 
through  whose  indwelling  spirit  men  become  "  tlic 
temple  of  God."  Yet  there  was  one  great  danger  to 
which  the  Greek  conception  of  Deity  exposed  its 
adherents — that  of  pantheism.  They  did  not  always 
find  it  easy  so  to  hold  the  divine  immanence  as  to 
avoid  identifjang  God  with  the  world. 

The  second  keystone  of  the  Greek  theology  is  the 
Incarnation.  Stress  is  laid  upon  this,  however,  not  as 
a  device  for  repairing  the  injury  wrought  l)y  the  Fall, 
but  as  the  completion  of  God's  eternal  purpose  "  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world."  The  divine  revelation 
in  Jesus  is  the  complement  of  the  divine  revelation  in 
nature.  This  view  is  already  propounded  by  Clement. 
"  Since  Christ  is  the  indwelling  God,  His  incarnation  is 
not  a  thing  new  or  strange,  an  abrupt  break  in  the 
continuity  of  man's  moral  history;  it  had  not  been 
decreed  in  the  divine  counsels  in  order  to  avoid  some 
impending  catastrophe  which  suddenly  confronted  or 
threatened  to  disappoint  the  divine  purpose;  it  was 
not  merely  an  historical  incident  by  which  he  came 
into  the  world  from  a  distance,  and,  having  done  His 
work,  retired  again  from  it.  He  was  in  the  world 
before  He  came  in  the  flesh,  and  was  preparing  the 
world  for  his  visible  advent.  As  indwelling  Deity,  He 
was  to  a  certain  extent  already  universally  incarnated, 
as  the  light  that  lighteth  every  man,  the  light  shining 
in  the  darkness,  the  light  and  life  of  men  in  every  age."  ^ 
To  the  Greek  theologian,  then,  the  incarnation  is  not 
'  only  a  natural,  but  almost  a  necessary  redemptive 
'  Allen,  The  Continuity  of  Christian  Thouyht,  p.  47. 


HISTORICAL  SERVICES  237 

manifestation  in  order  to  succour  sinful  and  suffering 
luinianity,  and  carries  with  it  the  salvation  of  the  race. 
He  is  not  careful,  like  the  writers  of  the  West,  to 
construct  theories  of  the  atonement,  which  is  viewed 
virtually  as  an  extension  of  the  incarnation.  For  liiin 
the  point  of  consequence  is  not  that  Christ  was  cruci- 
fied, but  that  Christ  became  flesh.  "  Hellenism  sat  by 
the  cradle,  while  Latinism  stood  by  the  cross  of  the 
Lord." 

The  third  cardinal  principle  in  the  Greek  theology 
is  that  of  the  All-Fatherhood  of  God.  Christ's  life  and 
death  are  viewed  as  the  proof  of  God's  identification 
with,  and  love  for,  mankind.  The  thought  of  God's 
justice  is  not  allowed  to  dwarf  that  of  His  goodness  ; 
man  does  not  quail  before  an  angry  judge,  for  the  Just 
One  is  good,  and  the  Parent-source  of  every  blessing, 
including  that  of  redemption.  In  taking  this  ground 
the  Greek  Fathers  were  at  all  events  true  to  the  funda- 
mental idea  of  the  gospel  as  a  revelation  of  divine  love. 
Whatever  may  be  its  merits  otherwise,  the  Latin  theo- 
logy, which  built  upon  sin  and  fear  and  j)ropitiation, 
undoubtedly  erred  in  permitting  the  great  truth  that 
God  is  love  to  slip  too  much  into  the  background. 
And  in  these  days  when  this  fact  is  growingly  recog- 
nised it  will  be  reckoned  to  the  credit  of  the  Greek 
theology  that  it  did  justice  to  the  "  magnetic  force  and 
universal  range  and  efficacy  "  of  that  Love  which  said : 
"  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up,  will  draw  all  men  unto  Me." 


CHAPTER   XI 

Reaction  against  Origenism 

Love  and  liatred  encircle  the  name  of  Origen.  Tliis 
was  the  case  ah-eady  in  his  lifetime.  Some  distrusted 
him  as  a  heretic,  others  invoked  his  aid  to  silence 
heretics  ;  by  some  he  was  almost  worshipped,  by  others 
he  was  bitterly  disliked.  And  sometimes  he  suffered 
as  much  at  the  hands  of  injudicious  partisans  as  from 
the  opposition  of  his  deadliest  enemies  ;  for  if  the  latter 
unscrupulously  misrepresented  his  views,  the  former 
frequently  retined  upon  them.  Generally  speaking, 
however,  for  at  least  a  century  and  a  half  after  his 
death,  he  was  regarded  with  respect  and  even  with 
veneration.  It  was  towards  the  end  of  the  fourth 
century  that  Origen's  doctrinal  position  began  to  be 
\'iewed  in  many  quarters  with  disapprobation.  Sub- 
stantially, it  was  still  adopted  by  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
although  Jerome  bitterly  accuses  him  of  having  aban- 
doned the  orthodox  faith.  On  the  subject  of  the 
Trinity  in  particular,  Origen  had  held  that  the  Son 
was  eternally  begotten  of,  and  yet  subordinate  to,  the 
Father.  It  came  to  be  felt  that  these  were  two 
incompatible  propositions.  Those  who  adhered  to  the 
first  asserted  that  the  Son  was  of  the  same  substance 
with  the  Father  (Ilomoousia) ;  those  who  adopted  the 

23!J 


REACTION  AGAINST  ORIGENISM     239 

second  tau<;'lit  that  there  were  two  natures.  Many 
Origcnists  were  prepared  to  accept  a  compromise,  and 
propounded  tlie  view  tliat  while  there  was  not  identity, 
tliere  was  similarity,  oi"  .sul)stance  {Honiolousia).  Sub- 
sequently, when  to  the  Nicene  Creed  there  had  been 
added  a  declaration  of  the  equality  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  there  took  place  in  the 
theological  thought  of  the  period  a  vigorous  reaction 
against  the  speculati^'e  spiritualism  of  the  school  of 
Origen,  and  a  strong  drift  in  favour  of  primitive  and 
traditional  belief.  Thus  it  came  about  that,  in  the 
fifth  century,  Origen  was  reckoned  a  heretic  in  respect 
of  his  teaching  upon  many  points.  Particular  exception 
was  taken,  however,  to  his  views  with  reference  to  (1) 
the  pre-existcnce  of  the  soul,  and  its  incarceration  in 
the  body  after  rebellion  against  God ;  (2)  the  human 
soul  of  Jesus ;  (3)  the  resurrection  of  the  body ;  (4) 
the  ultimate  restoration  of  all,  and  the  possibility  of 
redemption  for  the  de\'il ;  and  (5)  the  continued  creation 
of  new  worlds.  "  The  Church,"  says  Harnack,  "  has 
produced  two  fundamental  S3^stems,  Origen's  and 
Augustine's.  But  the  history  of  theology  in  the  East 
is  the  history  of  the  setting  aside  of  Origen's  system, 
and  the  same  is  to  be  said  of  the  Augustinian  in  the 
Catholic  West.  Only  the  procedure  in  the  East  was 
more  thoroughgoing  and  open  than  in  the  West. 
In  the  former  Origen  was  condemned,  in  the  latter 
Augustine  was  constantly  celebrated  as  the  greatest 
doctor  ecclesicc.  In  both  cases,  however,  the  rejection 
of  the  theological  system  caused  the  loss  of  a  coherent 
and  uniform  Christian  conception  of  the  world."  ^ 

The  first  regular  attack  upon  the  writings  of  Origen 
'  Ilistanj  0/  Dufjma,  iii.  p.  139. 


240     ORIGEN  AND   GREEK  THEOLOGY 

was  made  in  the  last  decade  of  the  third  century  by 
Methodius,  bisliop  of  Olympus  and  Patara  in  Lycia, 
and  subsequently  of  Tyre  in  Phoenicia.  In  a  treatise 
on  Thinys  Created,  fragments  of  which  have  been 
preserved  by  Photius,  he  assails  the  cosmology  of 
Origen,  and  charges  him  with  having  "fabled  many 
things  concerning  the  eternity  of  the  universe."  But 
his  criticism  is  so  ineffective  as  almost  to  justify  the 
remark  that  it  is  sometimes  difficult  to  know  whether 
he  is  imitating  or  opposing  Origen.^  This  is  probably 
due  to  the  fact  that,  while  strongly  advocating  the 
popular  concejDtion  of  the  Church's  creed,  and  main- 
taining the  literal  truth  of  sacred  history,  Methodius  is 
as  much  a  Platonist  as  Origen  himself.  His  antagonism 
finds,  however,  more  pronounced  expression  in  a  work 
upon  the  Resurrection.  Although  an  allegorist  himself, 
he  condemns  Origen's  method  as  well  as  his  doctrine. 
On  the  question  at  issue  he  denies  that  the  soul  alone 
is  man,  and  that  the  body  was  given  to  the  soul  as  a 
fetter  after  the  Fall,  and  maintains  that  if  there  were 
no  resurrection  of  the  flesh  Christ  would  have  agreed 
with  the  Sadducecs  who  invented  tlic  parable  about 
the  woman  and  the  seven  brethren.  "  If,"  he  argues, 
"the  soul  be  immortal,  and  the  body  be  the  corpse, 
those  who  say  that  there  is  a  resurrection,  but  not  of 
the  flesh,  deny  any  resurrection."  Methodius  also 
rejects  the  teaching  of  Origen  with  respect  to  the 
eternity  of  the  Logos,  the  pre-existence  of  the  soul, 
and  the  merely  temporary  character  of  the  bodily 
nature  as  a  moment  in  the  process  of  development. 
All  God's  creatures  are  capable  of  permanence.  So 
far  from  salvation  necessitating  separation  of  soul  and 
^  Schnitzer,  Origciics,  p.  43. 


REACTION  AGAINST  ORIGENISM     241 

body,  it  implies  tlic  reverse;  it  is  a  union  oi"  elements 
in  the  constitution  of  man  which  had  been  unnaturally 
divorced.  Unfortunately  the  strictures  of  Methodius 
are  conceived  more  in  the  spirit  of  a  champion  of 
orthodoxy  than  in  that  of  a  disinterested  seeker  after 
truth.  He  misrepresents,  as  well  as  assails,  the  views 
of  Origen.  His  aim  was  to  "  unite  the  theology  of 
Irenseus  and  Origen,  ecclesiastical  realism  and  philo- 
sophic spiritualism,  under  the  badge  of  monastic 
mysticism."  1  In  the  praise  of  virginity,  and  in  the 
reverence  for  "  mother  Church "  enjoined  upon  the 
individual  soul  that  would  become  the  bride  of  Christ, 
we  have  undoubtedly  the  distinctive  notes  of  the 
mysticism  associated  with  the  cloister.  Methodius 
was  not  alone  in  his  attacks,  his  aversion  to  the 
spiritualism  of  Origen  being  shared  by,  among  others, 
Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  Eustathius  of  Antioch,  Theophilus 
of  Alexandria,  and  Nepos  the  cultured  bishop  of 
Arsinoe,  who  wrote  a  work  against  "  the  allegorists." 

The  defence  of  Origen  was  taken  up  with  great  zest 
by  his  pupils  Pamphilus  the  Martyr,  and  Eusebius  the 
historian,  bishop  of  Caesarea.  Out  of  loving  devotion 
to  his  memory  they  made  a  collection  of  his  works  for 
the  Church  library  of  the  city  to  which  he  had  brought 
so  much  renown,  and  wrote  in  six  books,  of  which  only 
the  first  is  extant  in  a  translation  by  Rufinus,  an 
elaborate  Apology  for  Origen.  Their  enthusiasm  for 
their  master  was  genuine  and  lifelong,  and  led  them 
occasionally  to  run  riot  in  directions  unsanctioned  by 
him.  In  his  views  of  Christ,  for  instance,  Eusebius  is 
loose  and  unsatisfactory;  he  virtually  represents  the 
Mediator  as  a  created  and  secondary  God.     Pamphilus 

J  Harnack,  History  of  Dnrjma,  ii.  p.  13. 
i6 


242     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

relieved  the  trdiuia  ol'  iinprisoniiient  during  the 
Maximinian  persecution  by  working  at  the  Apology. 
It  was  his  last  task  before  his  martyrdom.  In  meet- 
ing the  charge  of  subordinationisra  in  the  Son's  rela- 
tion to  the  Father,  Pamphilus  adduces  evidence  from 
Origen's  writings  to  show  that  he  accepts  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  and  that  his  views  are  neither  of  an  emana- 
tionist  nor  of  a  docetic  character.  It  is  further 
asserted  by  this  loyal  disciple  that  many  loud  accusers 
of  his  master  had  no  better  foundation  for  their  charges 
than  that  of  idle  rumour.  Considering  it  heretical  to 
read  Origen's  works  at  all,  they  were  not  only  for  the 
most  part  quite  ignorant  of  the  writings  they  denounced, 
but  they  even  charged  him  with  errors  wliich  he  had 
been  at  pains  to  refute.  It  was  impossible  that  these 
silly  slanders  could  produce  much  effect  so  long  as 
Origen's  own  pupils  lived  to  contradict  them,  and  for 
a  time  his  authority  was  not  sensibly  diminished ;  in 
the  West  it  even  seemed  to  grow.  Nearly  all  the 
leading  Fathers  of  the  fourth  century  regarded  him 
with  honour,  and  even  down  to  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century  there  was  no  one  whose  prestige  was  compar- 
able to  his  own.  At  tlic  Council  of  Nice  Athanasius 
appealed  to  him  in  support  of  his  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  and  his  testimony  is  quoted  by  the  Church 
historian  Socrates  against  Origen's  critics  and  enemies, 
whom  he  stigmatises  as  "  vain  and  ambitious  ob- 
scurantists, hero-lcNelling  fellows." ^  Hilary  of  Poitiers 
rendered  into  Latin  his  commentaries  on  Job  and  St. 
Matthew ;  Ambrose  of  Milan  and  Eusebius  of  Vercelli 
did  the  same  for  certain  of  the  Commentaries  or 
Homilies.  Jerome,  too,  whose  early  enthusiasm  led 
^  See  Harnack,  Htstonj  of  Dorjma,  iii.  p.  146. 


REACTION  AGAINST  ORIGENISM      243 

him  to  regard  Origen  as  "  a  Church  teacher  .second 
only  to  the  apostles,"  translated  into  Latin  his  dis- 
courses on  St.  Luke  and  Canticles,  and  in  his  biblical 
works  avowedly  "pilfered"  from  the  exegetical 
treasure-stores  of  the  great  Alexandrian.  Origcn's 
theological  views  were  also  espoused  by  the  three 
Cappadocian  Fathers,  the  philosophical  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  his  elder  brother  Basil,  and  Gregory  Nazianzus. 
By  writing  in  the  spirit  of  the  Dc  Principiis  a  guide 
towards  the  apologetic  presentation  of  Christian 
doctrine,  the  first-mentioned  of  these  Fathers  seriously 
imperilled  his  reputation  for  orthodoxy.  To  the  two 
latter  we  owe  the  PJtilocalia,  which  has  preserved  for 
us  a  considerable  portion  of  the  De  Principiis  in  the 
original  Greek. 

In  the  East  neither  the  onslaughts  of  Peter,  bishop 
of  Alexandria,  nor  the  hostile  attitude  of  Eustathius 
of  Antioch  had  seriously  injured  Origen's  reputation. 
Towards  the  close  of  the  fourth  century,  however,  the 
tide  began  to  turn.  A  strong  feeling  of  antipathy 
to  his  views  was  developed  among  a  section  of  the 
Egyptian  monks.  While  those  of  the  Nitrian  desert, 
who  M'erc  distinguished  for  their  mystical  spiritualism, 
were  enamoured  of  his  doctrines,  those  of  the  Scetian 
desert  regarded  them  with  aversion,  and  in  their  re- 
coil from  his  idealistic  speculations  embraced  the 
grossest  anthropomorphism.  As  the  Arians  had 
claimed  the  support  of  Origen  for  their  side,  the 
fanatical  opponents  of  Arianism  had  gradually  come 
to  regard  him  as  the  source  of  all  heresy.  His  name 
was  dragged  into  all  the  subsequent  controversies  of 
the  period, — the  Pelagian,  the  Nestorian,  the  Eutychian, 
— and  this  very  circumstance  tended  to  increase  the 


244     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

suspicion  i'ustcrcd  hy  his  views  about  pre-existeucc  and 
the  resurrection.  His  teaching  on  the  subject  of  the 
eternal  gospel  had  also  excited  the  imagination  of 
many  of  the  Palestinian  and  Egyptian  monks  to  an 
extent  that  led  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  to  look 
with  disfavour  upon  writings  that  produced  such 
effects.  So  palpably  did  those  monks  who  favoured 
Origenistic  views  exaggerate  everything,  that  they 
must  be  carefully  distinguished  from  what  may  be 
termed  the  orthodox  Origenists,  who  held  by  the 
genuine  doctrines  of  the  master.  It  was,  however,  an 
unhappy  thought  on  the  part  of  the  latter  to  attempt 
to  adduce  evidence  from  Origen's  writings  to  show 
that  he  was  orthodox  according  to  the  standard  of  the 
Nicene  Creed.  With  this  design,  towards  the  end  of 
the  fourth  century,  Didymus  of  Alexandria  wrote 
commentaries  on  the  De  Principiis,  and  more  than  a 
century  later  Evagrius  and  others  were  still  writing 
in  a  similar  vein.  Apart  from  the  fact  that  fetters 
were  thus  placed  upon  individual  freedom  of  thought, 
this  whole  policy  lent  itself  too  readily  to  the  manipula- 
tion of  the  text  of  Origen's  writings,  and  in  conse- 
quence to  the  lasting  injury  of  theological  learning. 
As  time  passed,  the  controversial  din  over  the  grave  of 
Oricren  waxed  louder  and  louder.  The  bitterest  in- 
vectives  were  used;  Church  fellowships  were  broken 
up ;  private  friendships  were  dissolved.  Ultimately 
the  orthodox  party  triumphed ;  but  their  victory  did 
them  little  honour.  If  they  were  actuated  by  zeal  for 
truth,  it  was  a  zeal  untcmpered  by  Christian  charity. 
Owing  to  their  increasingly  complex  character,  it 
is  somewhat  difficult  to  trace  the  course  of  these 
Origenistic   wrangles.      In    not  a   few   instances   the 


REACTION  AGAINST  ORIGENISM     245 

inaiu  issues  disappeared  in  the  vortex  of  personal 
disputes.  One  of  these  quarrels  arose  in  Palestine. 
Jolin,  bisliop  of  Jerusalem,  lived  on  terms  of  intimate 
friendship  witli  the  two  Latin  theologians  Rutinus 
and  Jerome,  both  of  whom  shared  his  admiration  for 
Origen.  The  latter,  in  particular,  was  an  eager  collector 
and  translator  of  the  master's  works.  To  appreciate 
Origen  as  a  writer  he  considered  a  sign  of  intelligence ; 
his  detractors  lie  designated  "  barking  dogs."  To  be 
his  peer  in  scholarship  was  his  great  ambition.  But 
suddenly,  in  the  year  394,  the  spirit  of  his  dream  was 
changed.  A  Western  theologian  Vigilantius,  and  an 
Egyptian  monk  Aterbius,  having  arrived  in  Jerusalem 
and  commented  adversely  upon  Rufinus's  and  Jerome's 
attitude  towards  Origenistic  heresy,  the  latter,  dread- 
ing any  imputation  upon  his  orthodoxy,  began  to  kick 
his  former  idol.  Writing  to  Theophilus  he  says,  "  If 
you  believe  me,  I  never  was  an  Origenist ;  if  you  do 
not  believe  me,  I  have  now  ceased  to  be  one."  He  was 
further  incited  to  resile  from  his  partiality  for  Origen 
by  the  heated  diatribes  of  Epiphanius,  bishop  of 
Salamis,  who,  at  the  instigation  of  the  Scetian  monks, 
had  sailed  for  Palestine.  Invited  or  permitted  to 
preach,  this  prelate  uttered  a  violent  tirade  against 
Origenism,  to  which  John  made  a  spirited  reply, 
vindicating  the  credit  of  Origen,  and  denouncing 
anthropomorphism.  After  vainly  endeavouring  to  get 
him  to  abandon  his  Origenistic  views,  Epiphanius  in- 
duced Jerome  and  the  monks  at  Bethlehem  to  renounce 
Church  fellowship  with  John  and  his  sympathiser 
Rufinus.  The  controversy  was  further  embittered 
through  the  action  of  Epiphanius  in  invading  John's 
episcopal  rights  by  ordaining  Paulinianus,  a  brother 


246     ORIGEN  AND   GREEK  THEOLOGY 

of  Joroine,  as  pvesliytev  for  the  recalcitrant  monks 
at  Betlileheni.  Ultimately,  in  896,  Theopliilus  of 
Alexandria  was  called  in  as  arbiter,  and  Jerome  and 
Rufinns  were  reconciled  before  the  altar. 

A  new  storm-centre  now  arose  in  the  West.  Rufinus 
returned  to  Rome,  and  in  397  published  a  translation 
of  the  Dc  Pi'incipiis.  While  avowedly  omittino-  several 
of  the  most  compromisino-  passages,  and  affirming  that 
Origen's  works  in  general,  and  this  book  in  particular, 
had  been  maliciously  corrupted  by  heretics,  he  rather 
maladroitly  recalled  in  his  preface  Jerome's  early 
enthusiasm  for  Origen.  Tiie  wrath  of  the  latter,  on 
hearing  of  this,  knew  no  bounds.  He  issued  a  literal 
translation  of  the  work  in  question,  and  continued  to 
fulminate  furiously  not  only  against  Origenism,  but  also 
against  his  old  friend  and  associate.  As  a  Pelagian, 
Rufinus  adhered  to  Origen's  teaching  with  respect  to 
pre-existence  and  free  will,  but  being  no  Arian,  he 
rejected  his  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  On  the  latter 
point,  as  well  as  with  regard  to  the  resurrection,  he 
asserted  the  orthodoxy  alike  of  himself  and  of  the 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem.  At  the  same  time  he  severely 
condemned  the  detractors  of  Origen,  and  the  contro- 
versy grew  hotter  than  ever,  Rufinus  devoted  three 
years  to  a  treatise  in  which  he  defended  himself  and 
attacked  Jerome ;  the  latter  replied  in  a  similar  vein 
and  at  equal  length.  Partisans  on  both  sides  rushed 
into  the  fray.  Tlie  Roman  bishop  Siricius,  who  had  no 
great  liking  for  Jerome,  threw  his  a3gis  over  Rufinus; 
but  in  the  year  400,  under  his  successor  Anastasius,  he 
was  formally  censured  for  translating  the  De  Prin- 
cijnis.  His  friend  John  of  Jerusalem  fared  worse,  a 
Bull  of  excommunication  havinij:  been  issued  airainst 


REACTION  AGAINST  ORIGENISM      247 

liiin.  The  odd  thing  about  these  proceedings  was  that, 
according  to  his  own  naive  confession,  Anastasius  had 
never  even  heard  of  Origen  before  the  translations  of 
Rufinus  appeared.  Perhaps  this  absolute  ignorance  of 
his  works  made  it  easier  for  him  to  gratif}''  Jerome's 
disciple  Marcella,  who  called  for  their  condemnation. 

In  Egypt,  too,  Origenism  liad  come  under  a  cloud. 
Compelled  at  lir.st  by  the  violence  of  the  Scetian  monks 
to  anathematise  Origen's  writings,  Theophilus  of  Alex- 
andria afterwards  became  of  one  spirit  with  them,  and, 
breaking  away  from  his  former  predilection  for  their 
rivals  of  the  Nitrian  desert,  condemned  Origen  at  a 
synod  held  in  Alexandria  in  399.  Epiphanius,  who 
had  a  keen  scent  in  such  matters,  made  it  convenient 
to  attend  and  assist,  and  greatly  rejoiced  over  the 
defeat  of  Amalek.  According  to  Jerome,  the  sentence 
was  adopted  by  many  other  bishops  both  in  the  East 
and  in  the  West.  Two  years  later,  Theophilus,  who 
was  a  scheming,  vindictive  prelate  rather  than  a 
theologian,  denounced  Origenistic  views  in  a  violent 
manifesto,  which  Epiphanius  blessed  and  Jerome  ren- 
dered into  Latin.  Troops  were  employed  forcibly  to 
dislodge  from  the  Nitrian  mountains  the  monks  who 
refused  to  renounce  the  writings  of  Origen.  Although, 
however,  Theophilus  ordered  Origen's  works  to  be 
destroyed,  he  continued  to  read  them  himself,  on  the 
plea  that  he  "  culled  the  flower  and  passed  by  the 
thorn."  ^  Many  of  the  monks  took  refuge  in  Constan- 
tinople, where  they  hoped  to  plead  their  cause  before  the 
emperor.  There,  too,  tliey  enjoyed  the  kindly  protection 
of  the  noble-minded  Chrysostom,  who,  without  being 
exactly  an  Origenist,  put  a  high  value  on  the  service 
1  Socrates,  //,  E.  vi.  7. 


248     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

rendered  by  Oiigcn,  and  apparently  had  little  idea  of 
the  fierce  enmity  directed  against  his  admirers. 

The  Byzantine  capital  now  became  the  headipiarters 
of  the  Orioenistic  controversy.  Theophilus  forgot 
everything  else  in  the  desire  to  humiliate  Chrysostom. 
At  first  it  did  not  look  as  if  he  would  succeed,  for  at 
the  instance  of  the  monks  the  empress  Eudoxia  induced 
Arcadius  the  emperor  to  cite  Theophilus  to  appear  be- 
fore a  s3niod  to  be  presided  over  by  his  hated  rival. 
The  Alexandrian  prelate  invoked  the  aid  of  the  ever 
zealous  Epiphanius,  \\'ho,  however,  being  an  honest 
bigot,  withdrew  from  Constantinople  on  ascertaining 
that  he  had  been  misled  by  false  pretences.  But 
Theophilus,  finding  another  ally  in  the  faithful  preach- 
ing of  Cluysostom,  who  had  not  shrunk  from  rebuking 
the  vices  of  a  licentious  court,  contrived  to  turn  the 
tables  upon  his  opponent,  and  to  become  the  accuser 
instead  of  the  accused.  In  the  year  403  Chrysostom, 
after  refusing  to  attend  a  council  organised  and  packed 
by  Theophilus,  was  excommunicated  and  sent  into 
exile.  The  Alexandrian  Ijishop  wrote  to  Theotimus  of 
Scythia  requesting  liis  concurrence,  but  only  to  get  the 
retort  that  "  he  would  neither  besmirch  the  fair  fame  of 
a  sainted  man  long  since  gone  to  his  rest,  nor  have  the 
presumption  to  condenni  what  none  of  his  predecessors 
had  rejected."  ^  Within  a  few  days  of  his  banishment 
an  earthquake,  together  with  the  indignation  of  the 
populace,  led  to  the  recall  of  Chrysostom  and  to  the 
flight  of  Theophilus.  Ere  long,  however,  on  St.  John's 
day,  Chrysostom  was  rash  enough  to  compare  the 
empress  to  Herodias,  and  the  friends  of  Theophilus  at 
court   took  care  to  foster   her   indignation,  with   the 

'  SocialoR,  //.  E.  vi.  12. 


REACTION  AGAINST  ORIGENISM     249 

result  that  at  Easter,  in  tlic  j^ear  404,  Chrysostom  was 
seized  and  deported  to  Armenia.  Thereupon  the  brutal 
Theophilus  had  the  eli'rontery  to  write,  "  Babylon  is 
fallen,  is  fallen."  ^  This  second  exile  Chrysostom  en- 
dured witli  Christian  heroism,  and  to  his  attached  fl'jck 
he  continued  to  write  words  of  comfort  until  his  death, 
which  occurred  in  407  while  he  was  on  the  march  to 
a  still  drearier  place  of  exile  by  the  Black  Sea.  A 
generation  later,  under  Theodosius  11.,  the  protests  of 
his  flock  were  still  loud  enough  to  secure  that  his  bones 
sliould  be  brought  to  Constantinople  and  laid  in  an 
honoured  grave. 

During  the  fifth  century  there  was  a  comparative 
lull  in  the  storm  that  raged  around  Orig-en  and  his 
writings.  It  was,  however,  marked  by  two  incidents 
worth  noting,  the  one  at  its  connnencement,  the  other 
at  its  close.  In  Spain,  where  Pelagianism  had  already 
obtained  a  footing,  a  certain  Avitus  sought  to  introduce 
the  doctrines  of  Origen;  but  about  the  year  410  this 
attempt  was  thwarted  by  Orosius,  a  presbyter  of  that 
country.  Eighty-six  years  later,  in  A.D.  496,  by  a  decree 
of  the  Roman  bishop  Gelasius,  lie  was  i)ronounced  a 
schismatic  (! ),  and  all  his  works  were  abjured  except 
those  which  had  been  translated  by  Jerome. 

In  the  sixth  century  the  controversy  was  renewed  in 

all  its  bitterness.     About  the  year  530  the  convent  of 

St.  Sabas,  in  Palestine,  became  a  hotbed  of  Origenism. 

Among    the    abbots    there,   Domitian    and    Theodore 

(Askidas)  were  especially  distinguished  for  their  de- 

'  By  some  tlie  letter  iu  wliidi  this  occurs  is  ascribed  to  Jerome.  But 
oue  is  loth  to  think  that,  fiery  fanatic  as  he  could  sometimes  be,  that 
learned  Father  could  thus  glory  over  the  ruin  of  a  great  man  of  God, 
whose  only  offence  consisted  in  the  [uactice  of  Christian  charity  towards 
the  persecuted. 


250     ORIGKN   AND   GREEK  THEOLOGY 

votion  to  Oiii;x'n.  .Some  oi'  the  more  fanatical  ot"  the 
party  even  had  it  in  view  to  demolish  the  monasteries 
of  their  antagonists.  Before  his  death,  however,  Sabas 
himself  requested  the  emperor  Justinian  formally  to 
condemn  the  arch-heretic.  In  a  famous  letter  to 
Mennas,  patriarch  of  Constantinople  (c.  538),  Justinian 
tabulated  the  errors  of  Orio-en  and  oave  instructions  to 
have  him  condemned,  and  his  works  suppressed,  by 
synodal  decree.  The  stress  laid  in  this  document 
upon  the  heresy  of  pre-existencc  is  in  itself  eloquently 
suggestive  of  the  period  of  the  JMonophysite  contro- 
versy, and  of  the  opposing  camps  of  the  ProU>ldlsU  and 
the  IsocJirists,  into  which  the  Origcnists  were  divided. 
The  former  were  so  called  with  respect  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  pre-existence  of  the  soul  of  Jesus ;  the  name 
applied  to  the  latter  marked  them  out  as  defenders  of 
the  view  that  all  souls  will  ultimately  be  restored  and 
be  on  a  level  witli  Christ.  The  diocesan  synod  called 
v^  for  hy  Justinian  was  held  at  Constantinople  in  541, 
and  expanded  the  emperor's  nine  anathemas  against 
Origen  and  his  works  into  fifteen.^  Tliere  were  still, 
however,  at  court  secret  disciples  of  the  Alexandrian 
teacher.  Through  the  empress  Theodora  and  bishop 
Theodore  of  Coesarea,  whose  sympathies  were  with  the 
Monophysites,  these  were  able  to  devise  retaliatory 
measures.  Anxious  to  put  an  end  to  the  unrest  caused 
by  the  Monophysite  controversy  in  Egypt,  Justinian 
was  led  to  expect  that  his  object  could  be  achieved 
provided  "  the  three  chapters  " — the  Nestorian  writings 
of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  the  polemical  tractates  of 
Theodoret  of  Cyrus  against  Cyril,  and  the  letter  of 

^  The   student   will    fuul  these  cuunifratcd  in  TI;iiiiai;k's  Hi-4ory  of 
Doyma,  iv.  p.  348  f. 


REACTION   AGAINST  ORIGENISM      251 

Ibas  of  Edcssa  to  Maris — were  condciuiu'd.  Action 
was  accordingly  taken  on  these  linos  in  544 ;  but  the 
bishops  of  the  West  refused  to  subscribe  the  edict,  as 
being  derogatory  to  the  authority  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon.  In  547  Vigilius  of  Rome,  a  weak  and 
vacillating  man,  who  had  climbed  to  place  and  power 
as  the  tool  of  the  empress,  was  summoned  to  Constanti- 
nople and  compelled  to  acquiesce;  but  shortly  after, 
finding  that  the  African  bishops  and  others  had  re- 
nounced Church  connnunion  with  him,  he  withdrew 
this  approval.  Thereupon  Justinian  condemned  the 
three  chapters  afresh  (551).  After  nmch  dissension 
matters  were  at  length  settled  at  the  Fifth  General 
Council,  which  Justinian  sunnnoned  to  meet  at 
Constantinople  in  the  year  553.  The  three  chapters 
were  condemned.  Origen  also,  it  would  appear,  was 
anathematised.  He  was  not,  however,  singled  out  for 
special  treatment,  liis  name  being  mentioned  only  in  a' 
list  of  more  ancient  heretics.  With  this  deliverance 
the  long  and  bitter  series  of  Origenistic  disputes  came 
to  a  close. 


CHAPTER  XII 

Subsequent  History  of  Origenism 

The  subsequent  history  of  Origenism  is  disappointing. 
It  no  longer,  indeed,  had  a  ]ii,story  in  the  same  sense  as 
formerly ;  but  it  had,  or  ratlicr  remained,  an  influence 
that  could  never  die  out.  Like  Hellenism,  it  was  an 
atmosphere,  a  spirit,  a  subtle  force  pervading  thought 
and  life.  But  although  all  down  the  centuries  it  has 
lacked  neither  advocates  nor  assailants,  it  has  ne\'er 
again  become  the  battle-cry  of  opposing  parties  in  the 
Church.  For  a  time,  in  the  domain  of  theology,  it 
remained 

"  The  imperial  ensign  ;  wliicli,  full  liigli  ailvanced, 
Slione  like  a  meteor,  streaming  to  the  wind." 

But  only  afterwards  to  disappear  in  a  bog ;  irrecover- 
ably, as  a  complete  scientific  system,  yet,  happily,  not 
so  as   a   storeliouse   of   great   thouo-hts   frauo-ht  Avith 

o  o  o 

blessing  for  the  world  still.       ^ 

In  the  Eastern  Church,  after  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  the 
most  prominent  names  associated  with  Origen  down  to 
the  seventh  century  were  those  of  iEneas  of  Gaza, 
Zacharias  of  Mitylene,  and  "the  divine  philosopher" 
Maxinuis  Confessor.  iEneas  and  Zacluirias,  wIkj  lived 
in  tlie  fifth  and  sixth  centuries  respectively,  exhibit, 

252 


SUBSEQUENT  HISTORY  OF  ORIGENISM  253 

according  to  Denis,  "  incontestable  traces  of  Origenism, 
but  tlicy  arc  only  disjointed  reminiscences,  and  con- 
sequently of  no  great  significance."^  They  were 
rhetoricians  rather  than  theologians.  In  the  seventh 
century  Origenism  was  represented  by  Maximus,  an 
Eastern  monk,  an  able  thinker,  a  learned  scliolar,  and 
a  fearless  controversialist.  ]5y  denying  the  right  of 
the  emperor  to  intermeddle  in  disputed  questions  of 
dogmatic,  he  anticipated  the  contendings  of  later 
reformers  with  respect  to  the  Church's  independence 
of  the  State.  In  common  with  others  who  upheld  the 
affirmations  of  the  Chalcedonian  creed  regarding  two 
natures  and  two  wills,  he  denounced  the  imperial 
"  Typus  " — a  document  forbidding  all  controversy  as  to 
whether  Christ  had  only  one  will  or  two — on  the 
ground  that  it  robbed  Him  not  only  of  His  wills, 
but  also  of  His  action,  and  therefore  of  His  natures 
generally.  His  theology  was  of  the  scholastic  type, 
and  a  combination  of  Aristotelian  philosophy  and 
Alexandrian  mysticism.  His  great  theme  is  the  soul's 
rec^tivity ;  he  has  little  to  say  about  active  effort.  In 
his  doctrine  of  grace  he  resembles  Origen  rather  than 
Augustine,  holding  that  whatever  of  being  there  is  in 
us  is  good,  because  being  comes  from  God.  Even 
though  the  taint  of  sin  has  tarnished  our  race,  there 
always  remains  in  us  "  the  germ  and  the  faculty  of 
good."  Maximus  adhered  likewise  to  the  teaching  of 
Origen  and  Gregory  of  Nyssa  with  regard  to  universal 
salvation.  The  labours  of  the  Cappadocians  and  of 
Maximus,  together  with  the  philosophy  of  Aristotle, 
prepared  the  way  for  Greek  scholasticism  as  represented 
by  John  of  Damascus.     It  would  appear  that  by  the 

^  Dc  la  Philosophie  d'Origene,  p.  549. 


254     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

end  oi"  tlic  fourth  century  ilic  llcllcnistic;  spirit  had 
virtually  exhausted  itself.  It  no  longer  welled  up  in 
living  and  creative  power.  Even  the  writings  of 
Maximus  arc  largely  a  melange  of  the  ideas  of  Gregory 
of  Nyssa  and  those  of  the  pseudo-Dionysius,  who  lived 
early  in  the  fifth  century.  But  naturally,  as  inde- 
pendent thinking  waned,  increased  attention  was 
bestowed  upon  form  and  method.  The  intellectual 
treasures,  of  which  they  were  the  custodians,  no  longer 
stinuilated  the  Greek  theologians  to  add  to  their  bulk 
and  their  beauty ;  rather  did  they  constitute  a  burden- 
some, if  sacred,  heritage,  which  it  cost  much  labour  to 
preserve  and  transmit.  John  is  not  an  independent 
author  ;  he  is  a  diligent  editor,  a  scholastic  through  whose 
dialectic  skill  orthodox  Christianity  attained  a  fixed 
form  in  the  Greek  Church.  But  with  this  it  lost  much 
of  its  living  interest,  and  men's  minds  began  to  be 
occupied  with  questions  of  worship  rather  than  with 
problems  of  theology.  As  Ilarnack  says,  "  The  history 
of  dogma  came  to  a  close  in  the  Greek  Church  a 
thousand  years  ago,  and  its  reanimation  cannot  easily 
be  conceived."  ^  Such  a  situation  must  ever  appear 
regrettable  in  view  of  the  sparkle  and  brightness  which 
the  Greek  mind  might  have  imparted  to  Christianity. 

Until  the  time  of  the  Pelagian  controversies  Origen 
was  scarcely  known  in  the  West ;  and  even  then,  if  we 
except  the  accusations  of  Jerome,  his  name  was  not 
much  canvassed  either  in  orthodox  or  in  heterodox 
circles.  The  welcome  extended  to  the  writings  of 
Augustine  was  tantamount  to  the  rejection  of  those  of 
Origen.  What  more  particularly  sapped  the  founda- 
tions of  Origenism  was  Augustine's  doctrine  of  sin  and 

^  Hidory  of  Do'jma,  iv.  p.  352. 


SUBSEQUENT  HISTORY  OE  ORIGENISM  255 

(jjrace,  with  its  literal  acceptance  both  of  the  tradition 
of  original  sin  and  of  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
For  fully  three  hundred  3'^ears  the  Augustinian  position 
was  scarcely  challenged ;  yet  this  apparently  complete 
victory  of  the  great  Latin  Father's  teaching  over  that  of 
the  Greek  was  due  not  so  much  to  its  own  superiority 
in  depth  and  logic,  as  to  the  gross  darkness  induced  by 
the  disintegration  of  the  empire  of  the  West.  Amid 
the  chaotic  confusion  of  the  revolutionary  period  that 
witnessed  the  general  overthrow  of  institutions  and 
customs,  there  was  no  dispasition  to  investigate  the 
foundations  of  belief  or  to  stir  new  questions  for 
debate.  What  mental  energy  was  left  to  those  who 
represented  theological  study  had  to  be  expended  in 
the  summarising  of  results  already  reached.  The  only 
real  trace  of  Orio^en's  influence  in  the  Middle  Ao;es  is 
found  in  the  writings  of  John  Scotus  Eiigena  (flSOS). 
It  is  uncertain  whether  his  knowled(;e  of  Oricjen 
was  gained  at  first-hand  or  not.  There  is  nothing 
improbable  in  the  supposition  that  through  Theodore 
of  Tarsus,  who  became  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  he 
may  have  had  access  to  the  writings  of  the  Alexandrian 
Father.  But  although  Scotus  frequently  mentions 
Origen  by  name,  and  uses  language  closely  akin  to  his, 
he  docs  not  appear  ever  to  quote  him  directly.  While 
referring  freely  to  other  Greek  Fathers  also,  he 
studiously  ignores  the  Latin  Fathers,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Augustine  ("  who  is  really  mentioned  only 
honoris  causa")  and  Ambrose.  The  latter  attracted 
him  chiefly  through  his  Hexmneron,  an  allegorical 
treatise  of  more  pronouncedly  Alexandrian  type  than 
any  other  of  his  writings,  and  possibly  John's  know- 
ledge of  Origen  may  have  been  wholly  derived  from 


2  56     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

Ambrose  and  Grc^^oiy  of  Nyssa.  In  affirming  that 
"  true  pliilosopliy  is  true  religion,  and  true  religion  is 
true  philosophy,"  Scotus  at  once  reveals  his  affinity  to 
Origcn,  whom  he  specially  resembles  in  speculative 
boldness.  Nor  is  the  similarity  between  the  two 
men  confined  to  a  mere  general  bent  of  mind;  it  is 
doctrinal  as  well.  For  instance,  he  summarily  rejects 
the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  predestination.  Like 
Origcn,  too,  Scotus  asserted  the  eternity  of  the  world, 
and  held  that  had  God  existed  before  and  without  the 
world,  creation  would  have  been  an  accident  in  the 
divine  life.  Only  in  the  sense  in  wliich  cause  must 
exist  anterior  to  effect,  i.e.  by  a  logical  interval,  but 
not  an  interval  of  measurable  time,  did  God  exist 
before  the  world.  His  position  is  exactly  tliat  of 
Origen,  except  that  for  him  ci'cation  is  an  emanation, 
and  not  a  real  creation  by  an  act  of  will.  In  his 
spiritualising  tendency  he  even  goes  beyond  Origen. 
For  him  the  popular  notions  about  a  material  hell  are 
simply  a  relic  of  paganisin.  Conscience  constitutes 
both  heaven  and  hell :  "  there  is  no  other  joy  than  to 
see  Christ,  no  other  punishment  than  not  to  see  LLim." 
In  the  soul's  return  to  God  he  distinguishes  five  stages — 
death,  resurrection,  the  transformation  of  the  fleshly 
body  into  a  spiritual  body,  the  return  of  the  spirit  to 
lirst  causes,  and  finally  deification.  On  the  other 
hand,  in  his  doctrine  of  man,  whom  lie  views  as  a 
microcosm,  Scotus  deviates  from  Origen ;  and  on 
various  topics  he  takes  for  his  master  the  pseudo- 
Dionysius,  who  was  a  theosophic  mystic.  To  a  certain 
extent  the  spirit  of  Origen  reappears  also  in  the 
Neapolitan  monk  Joachim,  more  especially  in  his  free 
interpretation  of  the  sacred   text,  but  it   is  doubtful 


SUBSEQUENT  HISTORY  OF  ORIGENISM  257 

whether  he  had  any  acquaintance  with  the  writings  of 
the  great  Alexandrian. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  Origen's  . 
influence  upon  succeeding  ages  was  by  no  means 
commensurate  with  the  boldness  and  grandeur  of  his  • 
system.  This  may  be  accounted  for  in  several  ways. 
For  one  thing  it  was  not  "  compactly  built  together  "  ; 
through  its  looseness  and  discursiveness  it  was  at  a 
disadvantage  as  compared  with  the  more  firmly 
welded  Neoplatonism  of  Plotinus.  The  furious  strife 
that  raged  round  his  name  from  the  time  of  his 
death  until  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century  was  due 
more  to  personal  antipathies  than  to  any  great  living 
force  in  his  philosophy.  No  gi-eat  book  was  produced 
on  either  side.  The  doctrines  of  pre-existence  and  of 
tlie  eternity  of  the  world  were  no  doubt  taught  in 
many  of  the  philosophical  schools, — the  former,  in 
particular,  has  shown  a  persistent  tendency  to  assert 
itself  at  intervals  in  the  subsequent  history  of  the 
Church, — and  that  of  the  final  restoration  of  all  spirits 
received  the  support  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa  and  of 
Maximus  the  Confessor.  It  is  clear  from  the  Church 
history  of  Socrates  that  in  the  fifth  century  Origen's 
influence  was  in  certain  circles  still  undiminished ;  but 
if  the  Greek  Church  as  a  whole  had  held  him  in  much 
esteem,  it  would  surely  have  been  at  more  pains  to 
preserve  his  works.  The  truth  is,  his  name  was  no 
longer  one  to  conjure  with  in  the  East ;  and  it  was  still 
less  so  in  the  West.  The  thunders  of  Jerome  rendered 
him  an  object  of  general  suspicion.  The  prestige  of 
the  Augustinian  theology,  which  had  occupied  the 
field,  as  well  as  the  barbarism  and  ignorance  fostered 
by  repeated  invasions  on  almost  every  side,  likewise 
17 


258     ORIGEN   AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

tended  to  bring-  about  the  general  neglect  of  Origen's 
writings  even  after  they  were  accessible  to  readers  in 
the  Latin  tongue.  Not  until  the  ninth  century  did  any 
gleam  of  his  influence  appear ;  and  if  three  centuries 
later  it  manifested  itself  with  greater  strength  in  the 
pages  of  Duns  Scotus,  it  was  overlaid  and  virtually 
stifled  with  Neoplatonic  mysticism  drawn  from  the 
pseudo-Dionysius  the  Areopagite.  "  During  the  Middle 
Ages  Origen  was  only  a  name.  In  modern  times  his 
writings  have  been  restored  to  the  light  of  day,  but  life 
has  not  been  restored  to  his  doctrines.  Some  of  his 
ideas  have  crept  into  Jacob  Behmen,  into  Poiret,  into 
St.  Martin ;  his  system  has  remained  alien  to  them." 
So  writes  Denis/  who  is  probably  correct  in  thinking 
that,  owing  to  the  cosmology  of  its  founder,  the  re- 
conciliation of  the  modern  spirit  with  Origenism  is 
almost  inconceivable. 

Apart  altogether  from  the  (juestion  of  the  influence 
exerted  by  him,  it  may  be  noted  that  the  West  has 
been  much  more  generous  in  its  treatment  of  Origen 
than  the  East.  This  is  curious  enough,  and  yet  it  is 
only  another  illustration  of  the  well-attested  principle 
that  "no  prophet  is  accepted  in  his  own  country." 
During  the  Middle  Ages,  throughout  the  Greek  Church, 
his  name  was  held  in  execration,  and  the  margins  of 
his  MSS.  were  covered  with  the  bitter  denunciations  of 
anonymous  scribblers,  who  were  greatly  shocked  at 
what  they  considered  his  deadly  heresies  and  intoler- 
able blasphemies.  Even  yet  the  Church  whose  creed 
he  did  so  much  to  mould  regards  liim  with  decided 
aversion.  In  the  Latin  Church  opinion  has  always 
been  more  divided  as  to  his  merits,  some  having 
^  De  la  rhiloso2)hie  d'Origenc,  p.  611. 


SUBSEQUENT  HISTORY  OF  ORIGENISM  259 

written  in  condemnation,  others  in  defence,  of  liis 
views.  Augustine,  though  opposed  to  his  theology, 
had  that  respect  for  liis  memory  wliicli  it  was  fit  that 
one  great  man  should  entertain  in  relation  to  another. 
Vincentius  of  Lerinum  pointed  to  Origen  as  a  warning 
example  of  how  the  most  scholarly  and  illustrious 
teacher  might  deviate  from  the  highway  of  truth. 
Others,  doubtless,  have  considered  him  literally  beyond 
redemption,  and  the  question  of  his  salvation  has  been 
discussed  in  more  than  one  printed  treatise.  But  those 
who  doubted  of  his  salvation  did  not  scruple  to  help 
themselves  to  the  fruit  of  his  labours ;  they  were 
adherents  of  that  type  of  ecclesiastical  "  science  "  which 
cares  little  for  historical  truth,  and  "  lives  on  fragments 
of  the  men  whom  it  declares  to  be  heretics."  But  at 
the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century  Pope  Leo  in.  in- 
cluded among  the  patristic  readings  in  the  Roman 
breviary  several  selections  from  his  writings,  and  all 
along  many  were  disposed  to  regard  as  wanton  inter- 
polations by  heretics  what  of  heterodoxy  they  con- 
tained. In  the  fourteenth  century  the  pious  Mechtildis 
claimed  to  have  had  it  revealed  to  her  in  a  vision  that 
in  spite  of  his  errors  God  had  shown  him  mercy. 

Among  the  admirers  of  Origen  in  more  recent  times 
special  mention  is  due  to  the  learned  Erasmus.  Besides 
writing  his  life,  this  greatest  of  all  the  Humanists 
translated  some  of  his  Commentaries  into  Latin, 
thereby  confirming  his  declaration  that  he  "  learned 
more  Christian  philosophy  from  a  single  page  of 
Origen  than  from  ten  of  Augustine."  Luther  took  a 
diametrically  opposite  view :  Origeneni^amditdiim 
diris  devovi ;  but  Luther  was  not  without  strong 
dogmatic   bias — witness   the   fact   that   he  called   the 


26o     ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  THEOLOGY 

Epistle  of  St.  James  "  an  Epistle  of  straw."  The  great 
Reformer's  unfavourable  estimate  of  Origen  was 
possibly  due,  however,  more  to  the  impatience  Avith 
which  a  practical  mind  is  apt  to  view  the  idealist  and 
his  long-spun  theories  than  to  anj^thing  else.  It  is 
worth  recalling  that  in  his  Table  Talk  he  quotes  w^ith 
approval  what  Origen  says  about  the  power  of  devils 
being  broken  by  the  saints.^  Beza,  the  friend  of  Calvin, 
had  also  a  poor  opinion  of  Drigen.  Mclanchthon 
regarded  him  with  mixed  feelings,  approving  of  his 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  but  rejecting  his  view  of 
Justification.  While  not  homologating  his  opinions, 
the  venerable  Bede  and  the  saintly  Bernard  revered 
his  memory.  In  Genebrard  he  found  a  zealous 
defender  and  industrious  editor  of  his  works.^ 
Since  the  seventeenth  century,  when  Augustinian 
divines  still  referred  to  Origen  in  terms  of  heavy 
censure,  there  has  been  a  disposition  to  extend  to  him 
a  kindlier  judgment.      In  some  quarters  he  is  even 

^  Of  the  Devil  and  his  Works,  dcvii. 

^  These  were  first  printed  by  Merlin  in  1512.  His  emendations  are 
quite  uncritical.  Although  finely  printed,  the  edition  of  Erasmus 
(Basel,  1545)  is  lacking  in  care  and  exactness.  Rather  better  than 
these  is  the  edition  of  Genebrard  (Paris,  1574).  A  great  advance  in 
every  respect  is  shown  in  that  of  the  Benedictine  De  la  Hue,  4  vols,  fol., 
Paris,  1656-1659, — reprinted  by  Lommatzsch,  25  vols.  8vo,  Berlin, 
1831-1848,  and  by  Migne,  Patrologiie  Cursus  Co7npletus,  ser.  Grrece, 
vols,  xi.-xvii.  The  sidcndid  edition  of  the  Greek  Fathers  now  being 
issued  l)y  the  Berlin  Academy  provides  the  world  at  last  with  a  com- 
})lete  critical  edition  of  Origen's  extant  writings.  In  the  Journal  of 
Theological  Studies  (October,  1900)  there  is  an  article  by  E.  C.  Butler 
upon  "The  New  Tractatus  Origenis," — "a  series  of  twenty  homilies  in 
Latin  discovered  in  two  manuscripts  (10th  and  12th  centuries  re- 
spectively), by  Mgr.  Batiffol,  Rector  of  the  Institut  Catholiquo  of 
Toulouse,"  and  published  by  him  in  the  early  part  of  last  year.  The 
probability  appears  to  be  that  they  are  of  purely  Latin  origin. 


SUBSEQUENT  HISTORY  OF  ORIGENISM  261 

hailed  as  tlie  real  author  of  much  that  is  accounted 
modern  in  the  religious  thought  of  the  present  day. 
For  our  own  part,  we  are  inclined  to  accept  as  just 
and  Christian  the  calmly  conceived  and  finely  expressed 
estimate  of  the  author  of  Hours  with  the  Mystics :  "  Of 
the  merits  of  Origen  we  must  judge  in  the  spirit  of 
charity.  His  labours  entitle  him  to  no  less  at  our 
hands.  Of  this  victim  of  unmeasured  censure — this 
idol  of  indiscriminate  praise,  we  can  now  form  a  dis- 
passionate estimate.  The  uproar  of  the  contests  which 
ensued  upon  his  death  has  died  away.  Those  funeral 
games  are  ended.  We  are  not,  like  his  contemporaries, 
applauding  now  Jerome  and  now  Rufinus,  as  they 
strain  and  turn  in  their  grapple  of  hatred.  Let  not 
the  evil  which  was  no  part  of  his  design  be  laid  to 
his  charge.  Let  his  love  to  the  Most  Holy,  whom  he 
wished  to  serve,  be  present  with  us  when  we  think 
upon  the  multitude  of  his  errors.  His  whole  life  he 
ottered  up  as  a  sacrifice  to  his  Maker — calumny  alone 
would  snatch  the  offering  from  the  altar.  '  I  shall 
know  after  death,'  said  he,  'whether  those  stars  are 
indeed  animated.'  We  believe  that  he  now  does  know 
— in  heaven."  ^ 

^  R.  A.  Vauglian,  Essays  and  Bemains,  vol.  i.  p.  44. 


INDEX 


Abelarp,  146  ». 

Aoliaia,  Churcli  of,  50. 

Adarnantius,  98. 

Adamaiitius  =  Ongen,  104. 

/Eneas  of  Ga;;a,  252. 

Alexander,   bishop   of  Alexandria, 

221  f. 
Alexander,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  13, 

37,  50,  56,  63,  224. 
Alexandria,  2,   14,  24,  3.o,  44,  46, 

49  ff.,  54  f.,  58,  220  f.,  224,  247. 
Alexandrian  Church,  8,  37,  52,  62. 
Alexandrian  Fathers,  8,  81,  93,  209. 
Allen,  quoted,  Pref.,  236. 
Allin,  quoted,  223  f. 
Ambrose,  210,  242,  255  f. 
Ambrosius,   9,   47,  58,    62  f.,   100, 

110,  133,  138. 
Ammonius  Saceas,  6,  44. 
Anastasius,  bishop  of  Rome,  246  f. 
Anselin,  188. 
Antichrist,  206,  230. 
Antioch,  3,  13,  49,  51,  62,  222. 
Apologists,  the,  148. 
Aquila,  proconsul  of  Et^ypt,  40. 
Aquila.translatorofLXX,  99,101  If. 
Ai|uileia,  58. 

Arabia,  49,  53,  56,  61,  224. 
Arabian  Church,  60. 
Arcadius,  248. 
Arianism,  220,  222,  243. 
Aristides,  10. 
Aristotle,  253. 
Arius,  218,  221  f. 
Asia  Minor,  224  f. 


Aterbius,  245. 

Athanasius,  2,  217  h.,  218  ff. 

Athenagoras,  148. 

Atbenodorus,  56. 

Athens,  3,  10,  12,  36,  51,  58  f. 

Atonement,  Origen's  theory  of  the, 

186  ff. 
Augustine,    63,    212,    231  f.,    235, 

239,  254  f.,  259. 
Augustinian  theology,  257. 
Aurelius,  ilarcus,  105. 
Avitus,  249. 

Barnabas,  27. 

Basil  the  Great,  126,  243. 

Basilides,  4,  28. 

Baur,  referred  to,  43 7i.,  45  Ji. 

Baxter,  Richard,  98. 

Bede,  260. 

Behmen,  192  ».,  258. 

Bernard,  192  ?i.,  260. 

Beryllus,  59  f. 

Berytus,  56. 

Beza,  260. 

Bigg,   quoted  or  referred  to,  110, 

121,  125,  198. 
Bithynia,  58. 
Bostra,  59  f. 
Bruce,  quoted,  119. 
Burns,  quoted,  207. 
Butler,  74. 

C^SARKA,  50,  54  ff,  103,  175. 
Cffisarea  in  Cappadocia,  57,  224. 
Calvin,  98,  212,  260. 


263 


264 


INDEX 


Candidus,  the  Valentinian,  55. 

Cappadoeia,  53,  5G. 

(Jappadocian  Fathers,  243,  253. 

Caraealla,  46,  49. 

Carlyle,  213. 

Carthago,  Cluirch  of,  17. 

Cateclietical  School,  2,  8,  12,  19  f., 
40  f.,  43,  46,  214  f.,  220. 

Celsus,  9,  61,  10511'.,  150,  159. 

Celsus  the  Epieuiean,  105. 

Clialcedon,  Council  of,  2,  251. 

ChaUU^ans,  tlie,  84. 

Chiliasm,  229  f. 

Christianity,  1,  4,  7,  13,  15  ff.,  19, 
23  If.,  36  ir.,  49,  61,  84,  89  f., 
93  f.,  99,  105  f.,  109,  lllfl".,  127, 
159,  229,  232,  254, 

Chrysostoui,  247  IT. 

Church,  Origen's  idea  of  the,  196  f. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  2,  1311'.; 
attitude  of  towards  Greek  philo- 
sophy, 1 4  ff. ;  place  assigned  by 
to  reason,  16  ;  his  views  of  Holy 
Scripture,  17  ff.;  his  distinction 
of  the  true  Gnostic  from  the 
ordinary  disciijle,  19  f.;  his  in- 
fluence on  Origen,  20  ;  his  writ- 
ings, 20  (T. ;  apologetic  tread  of 
his  teaching,  2:i  f.  ;  founder  of  a 
scientific  Christian  dogmatic,  24  ; 
his  theology,  26  ff.,  37,  40,  44, 
73,  79,  81,  84  tf.,  90,  120,  131, 
148,  158,  189f.,  196 ff.,  210,  236. 

Constantine  l.,  105,  222. 

Constantino  11.,  222. 

Constantinople,  247  f.,  250  f. 

Constantins,  222. 

Cranmer,  218. 

Cunningham,  referred  to,  26. 

Cyprian,  196,  229, 

Cyril,  250. 

Dante,  quoted  or  referred  to,  39, 

170  n.,  203  (f.,  210. 
Decian  persecution,  61  f.,  218  f. 
Demetrius,   bishop   of  Alexandria, 

41,  43,  46,  49  ff.,  60,  63,  215. 
Denis,   quoted  or  referred  to,  3f., 

77,   80,   87  f.,  92,  97,  121,  253, 

258. 


Didymus,  214,  220,  244. 
Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  241. 
Diognetus,  Epistle  to,  231. 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  62,  214, 

216  ff. 
Dionysius  of  Rome,  217. 
Discourse,    The    I'rue,    105,    107, 

109  ff. 
Dods,  referred  to,  23. 
Domitian,  abbot  of  St.  Sabas,  249. 

Eastern  Church,  210,    215,    223, 

231,  252. 
Egypt,  13,  35,  49,  55,  247,  250. 
Egyptian  Church,  37,  41,  50,  63. 
Egyptian  monks,  243. 
Egyptians,  84,  163. 
Eleazar,  139. 
Elkesaites,  the,  59,  61. 
Emmaus  (Nicopolis),  58. 
Ephcsus,  51,  101. 
Epicureanism,  42,  84. 
Epicureans,  108. 
Epiphanius,  245,  247  f. 
Erasmus,  259. 
Ernesti,  123. 
Eudoxia,  248. 
Eusebius  of  Ciesarca,    42,    45,    49, 

53,  60,  62,  66,  92,  103,  105,  111, 

152  ?i.,  198  ?i.,  241. 
Eusebius  of  Vercelli,  242. 
Eustathius  of  Antioeh,  241,  243. 
Eutychian  controversy,  243  f. 
Evagrius,  244. 

Fabian,  bishop  of  Rome,  53,  198  ». 

Fenelon,  192  n. 

Fifth  General  Council,  251. 

Firmilian,  57,  224. 

Free  will,  the  doctrine  of,  132, 161  ff. 

Gallienus,  218. 

Gaul,  228. 

Gelasius  of  Rome,  249. 

Genebrard,  260. 

Gennadius,  54. 

Geta,  49. 

Gnostics,  2,  4,  6,  14,  18,  48,  78  f., 

88,    139,    144,    162  f.,    169,    189, 

211,  228. 


INDEX 


265 


Gordian,  110. 

Gospel,  The  Elernal,  179,  190,  214. 

Gosjiels,  tlie,  67,  101. 

Goths,  the,  227. 

Greece,  f)0,  .13,  58,  101. 

Greek  Church,  232,  257  f. 

Greek   Fathers,    210,    220,    228  f., 

230  f.,  237,  255. 
Greek   jihilosophy,    82,    84  ff.,    91, 

115,  211,  219,  225  f. 
Greek  theology,  228  f. 
Gregory  the  Cappadocian,  223. 
Gregory  ot'Naziauzen,  126,  223,  243. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,   210,   226,  238, 

243,  252  ff.,  257. 
Gregory  Thaniiiaturgus,   11,   56  f., 

59,  64,  133,  225  ff. 
Giiyon,  Madame  de,  192  Jt. 

Hades,  204  f. 

Hadrian,  100. 

Harnack,  quoted  or  referred  to,  25, 
53,  85,  91,  97,  126,  153,  172  f., 
190,  212,  239,  241  f.,  250,  254. 

Hellenism,  233,  252. 

Hellenistic  theology,  232  ff. 

Heraclas,  2,  9,  39,  44  If.,  53  f.,  62, 
214  f. 

Heraclitus,  107f. 

Hermas,  The  Shc2)hcrcl  of,  74. 

Herod  the  Great,  54. 

Ilcxapla,  The,  47,  50,  55,  58,  101  ff. 

Hilary  of  Poitiers,  242. 

Hippolytus,  49. 

Ibas  of  Edessa,  250. 

Incarnation,  doctrine  of  the,  117  ff., 

131,  180  ff.,  236. 
India,  37. 

Irenrens,  17,  145,  241. 
Irvingites,  the,  228. 
Italy,  228. 

Jericho,  50,  101. 

Jerome,  12,  35,  52,  56,  98,  103  f., 
120,  125,  171,  210,  227,  238, 
542,  245  ff.,  254,  257,  261. 

Jerusalem,  3,  63,  203,  224,  245  f. 

Je-sns  Christ,  12,  18,  24,  54,  86  f., 
95  f.,  108  f.,  116  f.,  135ff.,145f., 


149,    151  ff.,    163,    172,    178  f, 

181  ff.,  229,  250. 
Joachim,  256. 

John  of  Damascus,  253  f. 

Jolui  of  Jerusalem,  245  f. 

John  Scotus  Erigena,  255  f.,  258, 

Josephus,  99. 

Jovian,  224. 

Judaism,  3,  99,  109,  116  f.,  195. 

Julia  Mammaja,  49. 

Julian,  223. 

Juliana,  57. 

Julius  Africanus,  58  f.,  133,  224. 

Justin,  8,  10,  15,  24,  99,  148,  228, 

230. 
Justinian,  250  f. 

Kroxius,  45. 

L^TUS,  40. 

Latin  Church,  230,  232. 

Latin  Fathers,  255. 

Leibnitz,  150. 

Leo  III.,  Pope,  259. 

Leonides,  35  ff". 

Libya,  bishops  of,  217  ;  desert  of, 

218. 
Logos,  the,  3.   14  f.,  17,  24  ff.,  86, 

94,    131,    144,   151  f.,    15.'.,  172, 

182  ff.,  240. 
Lucian,  105. 
Luther,  212,  259  f. 

Marcella,  247. 

Maris,  251. 

Martin,  St.,  258. 

Maximinus  Thrax,  138,  224. 

Maximus  Confessor,  252  ff. 

Mechtildis,  259. 

Melanchtlion,  64,  260. 

Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis,  65,  120. 

Meunas  of  Constantinople,  250. 

Methodius,  230,  240  f. 

j\lilan.  Council  of,  223. 

Moderatus,  15. 

Monophysite  controversy,  250. 

Montanists,  the,  123,  228  ff. 

Morinus,  Petrus,  103. 

Moses,  82,  86,  109. 

Mystics,  the,  17. 


266 


INDEX 


Neandek,  20  f.,  44  7!.. 
NeocTsarea  in  Pontus,  22.')  f. 
Neoplatonisiii,  6,  23,  4-1,  215,  257. 
Neoiilatonists,  96,  144. 
Nepos  of  Arsinoo,  217,  241. 
Nestorian  conlrovLi.-v,  243. 
Nica>a,  Council  of,  2,"  221  f.,  242. 
Nicoiiiaclnis,  4;"). 
Nicomedia,  58  f. 
Nicopolis,  58,  101,  224. 
Nitrian  monks,  243,  247. 
Noetus,  160. 
Novatus,  217. 
Nuruenius,  45. 

Origex,  2,  11  ff".,  18,  20,  34  ;  his 
birtli,  surname,  jiarenta^e,  and 
early  education,  35  ff. ;  meaning 
of  the  name,  35  ;  Origcn  as  a 
teaclier,  39  ;  his  sj-mpathy  witli 
Christian  martyrs,  40  ;  his  un- 
■worldliness,   41  ;   liis  asceticism, 

42  f. ;  his  self-mutilation,  43  ; 
his  devotion  to  Greek  ])lii]osopliy, 

43  (T. ;  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew, 
K  46  f.;  his  literary  labours,  47  f  ; 

journeys  to  Arabia  and  Antioch, 
49 ;  sojourn  in  Palestine,  50  ; 
his  ordination  by  the  Palestinian 
bishops,  50  ;  visit  to  the  Churcli 
of  Acliaia,  50  f.;  liis  final  depar- 
ture from  Alexandria,  52;  his 
deposition  from  the  rank  of 
presbyter,  52 ;  settlement  at 
Civsarea,  and  establishment  of  a 
theological  scliool  tliere,  54  f. ; 
the  counsellor  of  foreign  Churches, 
56,  60  ;  his  magnetic  influence 
over  liis  pupils,  56  f. ;  his  two 
years'  concealment  in  the  Capjia- 
docian  Ca?sarea,  57  f. ;  second 
visit  to  Greece,  58  ;  letters  to 
Julius  Africanus  and  to  Gregor}', 

59  ;  Ins  exegctical  work,  59  ;  his 
mediation  in  the  case  of  Beryllus, 

60  ;  correspondence  with  Philip 
the  Aral)ian,  61  ;  imprisonment 
and  toiture  under  Dccius,  62  ; 
his  death,  62;  his  character,  62  If. 

Origen's  vievj  of  Holy  Scripture, 


05  fl'.;  Ills  belief  in  inspiration, 
67  ff. ;  unity  of  the  sacred  writ- 
ings, 69  f.;  the  Sj)irit's  twofold 
object  in  Scrijiture,  70  If. ;  the 
allegorical  method,  73  f. ;  his 
ruling  principle  of  interjiretation, 
or  the  threefold  sense,  74  f. ;  the 
function  of  allegorism  to  discover 
"mysteries,"  76  ;  his  reasons  for 
adopting  an  allegorical  exegesis, 
77,  80  ;  futility  of  tiiis  method, 
77;  relation  between  the  law 
and  the  gospel,  77  ;  liis  negative 
use  of  allegorism  as  an  ajiologetic 
weapon,  79 ;  the  doctrine  of 
economy  or  reserve,  81  ;  Origen's 
failure  to  recognise  historical  de- 
velopment in  revelation,  82. 

Origen's  rdicfious  philosophy,  84  fl'. ; 
relation  of  Christian  doctrine  to 
Greek  philosophy,  84  f.;  philo- 
sophy relatively  true,  but  in- 
adequate, 85  f. ;  the  incarnation 
of  Jesus  the  true  goal  alike  of 
Greek  philosojihy  and  of  revealtd 
wisdom,  86  ;  Gnostic  and  Neo- 
lilatonic  features  of  Origen's 
theological  system,  87  ;  his  doc- 
trines, as  distinguished  from 
their  philosophical  dress,  derived 
from  Scripture,  87  f.;  value  at- 
tached by  him  to  a  scientific 
conception  of  Christianity,  89  ; 
his  distinction  between  exoteric 
and  esoteric  Cliristianity,  90  ; 
drawbacks  of  Origen's  conception 
of  Christianity,  91  ;  his  use  of 
the  Greek  cosmology,  91  f. ;  his 
moral  and  religious  ideal  jiartly 
Neoplatonic,  partly  scrijitural, 
92  f. ;  his  theory  of  knowledge 
and  its  relation  to  f\iitli,  94  ;  re- 
lation of  faith  to  obedience,  94  f. ; 
imperfection  of  all  human  know- 
ledge, 95  f. ;  the  deification  of 
humanity,  96  ;  main  outlines  of 
Origen's  philosojdiy,  97. 

Origen,  UTitings  of,  98  ff.;  contri- 
butions to  textual  criticism, 
99  ff.;  hia  apologetic  work — the 


INDEX 


267 


Contra  Celsum,  105  fT.;  cxegetical 
writings,  120  tf. ;  dogmatic  works 
—  the  De  Principiis,  125  ff.; 
letters,  and  treatises  on  Prayer 
and  Martyrdom,  133  fF. 

Origen's  Tlicolocjy,  142-212  ;  nature 
of  God,  1-12  if. ;  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  148  ff.;  the  world  of 
created  spirits  and  the  concep- 
tion of  formal  freedom,  16111'.; 
Creation  and  the  Fall,  168  if.; 
the  doctrine  of  man,  171  tf  ;  the 
Four  Kevelations,  177  ff.;  the 
Incarnation,  180  ff.;  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ,  185  if  ;  the  soul's  re- 
turn to  God,  190  ff.;  the  last 
things,  202  ff. 

Origen,  versatility  of  his  genius, 
213  ;  successors  of  Origen,  213ff. ; 
hisintluence  in  Alexandria,  215  ff. ; 
in  Asia  Minor,  224  ff. ;  decay  of 
his  iniluence  towards  the  end  of 
the  fourth  century,  243  ;  attack 
on  his  writings  by  Methodius, 
239  ff. ;  his  defence  undertaken 
by  Pamphilus  and  Eusebius, 
241  f. ;  further  Origenistic  con- 
troversies, 243  ff. 

Orosius,  249. 

Palestine,  50,  53 f.,  58,  103,  224, 

245. 
Pampiiilus,  53,  103,  105,  126   133, 

218,  241  f. 
Pantrenus,2,  10, 12f ,  36f.,  44,  120. 
Patrick,  quoted  or  referred  to,  109, 

111. 
Paul,  the  Apostle,  32,  77,  163,  165, 

228  f.,  232;  his  theology,  13,  33, 

172  ;  his  writings,  206. 
Paul,  the  Gnostic,  38,  62. 
Pauliniauus,  245. 
Pelagian     controversy,    243,    249, 

254. 
Peter  the  Martyr,  214  f.,  219,  243. 
Phfi'dinuis  of  Amasia,  226. 
Philip  the  Arabian,  55,  61,  110. 
Philo,  3,  26f.,  32,  78,  148. 
PUlocalia,  The,  126,  243. 
Phoenicia,  53,  240. 


Photius,  12,  126,  218  f.,  240. 

Phrygia,  228. 

Pierius,  214,  218. 

Plato,    86  ff,    114  ff.,    150«.,    156, 

172,  196. 
Platonisni,   Off.,  34,   42  f.,  40,  84, 

87,  171  f. 
Platonists,  6,  26,  107. 
I'lotinus,  108,  257. 
Plutarch,  39. 
Poiret,  258. 

Porphyry,  9,  44,  92,  108. 
Prayer  to  Christ,  136  f. 
Pressensc,    quoted   or  referred   to, 

48  ?i.,  107,  211. 
Protestantism,  17. 
Protoktetus,  58. 

Pseudo-Dionysius,  254,  256,  258. 
Pythagoras,  87,  107. 

Redepenning,  quoted  or  referred 

to,  8,  44  ?i.,  53,  67,  73,  97,  126, 

211. 
Reuss,  quoted,  65  f. 
Rhodon,  214,  220. 
Rome,  46,   149,   197,  246  ;  Church 

of,  17,  53,  197 f.,  232. 
Rufinus,    98,    120,    122,    125,   158, 

241,  245  ff.,  2G1. 

Sabas,  St.,  monks  of,  249. 
Sabellianism,  217,  227. 
Sacraments,   Origen's  view  of  the, 

199  ff. 
Salmond,  quoted,  83. 
Sarapieion,  the,  14. 
Sardia,  Council  of,  223. 
Scetian  monks,  243,  245,  247  f. 
Schnitzer,  quoted   or  referred   to, 

10,  43,  45,  126  f.,  240. 
Septuagint,  99  ff.,  121. 
Serapis,  40. 

Scvera,  wife  of  Philip  thcArabian,  61. 
Sevcrus,  Alexander,  49,  57,  61. 
Severus,  Septimius,  13,  37,  46. 
Sinope,  100. 

Siricius,  bishop  of  Rome,  246. 
Socrates,   the  historian,  242,   247, 

257. 
Southey,  74. 


268 


INDEX 


Stoicism,  42,  97. 
Stoics,  88  f. 
Suidas,  35. 
Synimaehus,  57,  101. 

Tatiana,  133. 

Tauler,  192  71. 

Tennyson,   quoted   or   referred   to, 

173,  233. 
Tertullian,  5,  14,  17,  145,  148. 
Tctrapla,  The,  103. 
Theodora,  tlie  empress,  250. 
Theodore  (Askidas),  249. 
Tlieodore  of  Cresarea,  250. 
Tlieodore  of  JMopsuestia,  250. 
Theodore  of  Tarsus,  255. 
Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  250. 
Theodosius  ii.,  249. 
Theodotion,  101  f. 
Theognostus,  214  f.,  219. 
Theoktetus,  138. 
Theoktistus  of  Coesarea,  50,  56. 
Theoplnlus    of    Alexandria,    241, 

245  i\. 


Theophilus  of  Antiocli,  120. 

Theotimus  of  Scythia,  248. 

"  The  Three  Chapters,"  250  f. 

Timotliy,  36. 

Tractarian  Movement,  the,  82. 

"Typus,"  253. 

Tyre,  02,  240. 

Valens,  224. 

Valentinus,  4,  28,  87,  97. 

Valerian,  218. 

Vaughan,  R.  A.,  quoted  or  referred 

to,  51,  214,  261. 
Yigilantius,  245. 
Vigilius  of  Rome,  251. 
Vincentius  of  Leriuuni,  259. 
Voltaire,  108. 

Western  Church,  210,  223,  231  f., 

235. 
Wiclif,  198. 

Zaoharias  of  Mitylene,  252. 
Zephyrinus,  40. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  PuUications. 


THE    WORLD'S 

EPOCH-MAKERS. 

A  Series  of  Biographical  Studies  dealing  with  Prominent  Epochs  in  Theology, 
Philosophy,  and  the  History  of  Intellectual  Development. 

Edited   by  OLIPHANT  SMEATON. 


Each  Volume  contains  on  an  average  250  pages,  and  is  published  at  $1.25, 
The  Volumes  will  not  appear  in  strict  chronological  sequence. 


I.  BUDDHA  AND  BUDDHISM.     The  First  Bursting  of  the  Fetters  of 
Ignorance  and  Superstition.     By  Akthuu  Lillie,  M.A.,  London. 

[Now  ready. 

II.  SOCRATES.     The  Moral  Awakening  of  the  Western  World.     By  Rev. 
J.  T.  Forbes,  M.A.,  Edinburgh.  [Shortly. 

III.  PLATO.      By  Professor  D.    G.    Ritchie,    M.A.,    University    of   St. 

Andrews. 

IV.  MARCUS  AURELIUS  AND  THE  LATER  STOICS.     The  Last  and 

the   Greatest  Age  of  Stoicism,      By  F.  W,  Bussell,  D.D.,  Vice- 
Principal  of  Brasenose  College,  Oxford.  [Shortly. 

V.  ORIGEN  AND  GREEK  PATRISTIC  THEOLOGY,     By  Rev.  W. 
Fairweather,  M.A.  [Xow  ready. 

VI,  AUGUSTINE   AND   LATIN    PATRISTIC   THEOLOGY.    By  Rev. 
Professor  B.  B.  Warfield,  D.D.,  Princeton. 

VII.  MUHAMMAD  AND  HIS  POWER.     By  P.  De  Lact  Johnstone, 
M.A.(Oxon.).  [Now  ready. 

VIII.  ANSELM  AND  CUR  DEUS  HOMO.    By  Rev.  A.  C.  Welch,  B.D. 

[Notu  ready. 

IX.  FRANCIS    AND    DOMINIC  AND  THE  MENDICANT    ORDERS, 
By  Rev.  Professor  J,  Herkless,  D.D.,  University  of  St.  Andrews. 

[Novj  ready. 

X,  SCOTUS  ERIGENA  AND  HIS  EPOCH.    By  R.  Latta,  Ph.D.,  D.Sc, 
Professor  of  Moral  Philosophy  in  the  University  of  Aberdeen, 

XI.  WYCLIF  AND  THE  LOLLARDS.     By  Rev.  J,  C.  Carrick,  B.D. 

XIL  THE  MEDICI  AND  THE  ITALIAN  RENAISSANCE.     By  Oliphant 
Smeaton,  M.A.,  Edinburgh. 

[Continued  on  next  page. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  PuUications. 


THE  WORLD'S  EPOCH-MAKERS-eon^mwei. 

XIII.  THE  TWO  BACONS  AND  EXPERIMENTAL  SCIENCE.    Show- 

ing how  RociER  Bacon  prepared  the  way  for  Francis  Bacon 
Lord  Verulam.    By  Rev.  W.  J.  Couper,  M.A. 

XIV.  SAVONAROLA.     By  Rev.  G.  M'Hardy,  D.D.  [Now  ready. 

XV.  LUTHER    AND    THE    GERMAN    REFORMATION.     By   Rev. 
Professor  T.  M.  Lindsay,  D.D.,  U.F.C.  College,  Glasgow. 

[Now  ready. 

XVI.  CRANMER  AND  THE  ENGLISH  REFORMATION.     By  A.  D. 
Innes,  M.A.(Oxon.),  London.  [Nmo  ready. 

XVII.  CALVIN    AND    THE     REFORMED    THEOLOGY.      By    Rev. 
Principal  Salmond,  D.D.,  U.F.C.  College,  Aberdeen. 

XVIII.  PASCAL    AND    THE    PORT    ROYALISTS.      By  Professor  W. 
Clark,  LL.D.,  D.C.L.,  Trinity  College,  Toronto. 

XIX.  DESCARTES,    SPINOZA,    AND    THE    NEW    PHILOSOPHY. 
By  Rev.  Professor  J.  Iverach,  D.D.,  U.F.C.  College,  Aberdeen. 

XX.  WILLIAM  HERSCHEL  AND  HIS  WORK.      By  James  Sime, 
M.  A. ,  F.  R.  S.  E.  [Kuw  ready. 

XXI.  WESLEY  AND  METHODISM.     By  F.  J.  Snell,  M.A.(Oxon.). 

[Now  ready. 

XXIL  LESSING  AND  THE  NEW  HUMANISM.    Including  Baumgarten 
and  the  Science  of  .(Esthetics.    By  Rev.  A.  P.  Davidson,  M.A. 

XXI II.  HUME    AND    HIS    INFLUENCE    ON    PHILOSOPHY    AND 

THEOLOGY.     By  Professor  J.  Orr,  D.D.,  Glasgow. 

XXIV.  ROUSSEAU  AND  NATURALISM  IN  LIFE  AND  THOUGHT. 

By  Professor  W.  H.  Hudson,   M.A.,   Leland  Stanford  Junior 
University,  California. 

XXV.  KANT  AND  HIS  PHILOSOPHICAL  REVOLUTION.     By  Pro- 
fessor R.  M.  Wenley,  D.Sc,  Ph.D.,  University  of  Michigan. 

XXVI.  SCHLEIERMACUER  AND  THE  REJUVENESCENCE  OF 
THEOLOGY.  By  Professor  A.  Martin,  D.D.,  New  College, 
Edinburgh.  [Shortly. 

XXVII.  HEGEL  AND   HEGELIANISM.     By  Professor  R.  Mackintosh 
D.D.,  Lancashire  Independent  College,  Manchester. 

XXVIII.  NEWMAN    AND    HIS    INFLUENCE.     By  C.  Sauolea,  Ph.D., 
Litt.  Doc,  University  of  Edinburgh. 


BIBLE     ©LASS     fRIMERS. 

Edited  by  Rev.  Pkincipal  Salmond,  D.D. 
Price  20  cents  each,  nett. 

Tlie  History  of  the  English  Bible,  and  How  It  has  come  down  to  Us.    By 

Kev.  W.  lUntNET    1  iiomson,  M.A.,  B.D.     Witli  Illustrations  of  .MSS. 
Historical  Geography  Of  the  Holy  Land.     With  42  Illustnitious.     By  Kev. 

S.  i;.  MArniAii,,  D.W 
Our  Lord's  Illustrations.     By  Rev.  R.  Resker,  M.A, 
Elijah  and  Elisha.     I'.y  Kev.  II.  G.  MacIntyue,  B.D. 
The  Exile  and  the  Restoration.     By  Professor  A.  B.  Davidson,  D.D. 
The  Miracles  of  Our  Lord.     By  Profcssu- J.  Laidi.aw,  D.D. 
Christian   Conduct;  Christian  Character:  A  Study  in  New  Testament 

]\[oi;ility.     By  Professor  1".  B.  Kii.i'Atuick,  D.D. 
The  Free  Church  of  Scotland.     By  Rov.  O.  G.  M'Giue,  D.D. 
The  Making  of  Israel.     By  Jxov.  0.  A.  Scott,  B.D. 
The  Truth  of  Christianity.     I'y  Rev.  Professor  Ivekacii,  D.D. 
The  Sabbath.     r>y  Rev.  rrincijjal  Salmond,  D.D. 
Our  Christian  Passover.     By  Rev.  C.  A.  Salmond,  M.A. 
The    Kingdom   of   God.      A    Plan   of   Study.      In  Throe  Parts.     By  Rev. 

V.  1 1  K.KBEUT  Stkad,  M.A.  (Or  the  Three  Parts  in  one  vol. ,  cloth,  45  cents.) 
The  Parables  of  Our  Lord.     By  Kev.  Principal  Salmond,  D.D. 
Life  of  St.  John.    By  Paton  J.  Gloag,  D.D. 
Life  of  Abraham.     ]'.y  Rev.  C.  A.  Scott,  B.D. 
Historical  Connection  between  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.     By  Eev. 

I'rotVssor  .John  Skinner,  M.A. ,  D.D. 
The  Life  of  Christ.     By  Rev.  Principal  Salmond,  D.D. 
The  Shorter  Catechism.      In  Three  Parts.     By  Rev.  Principal  Salmond, 

D.D.     (Or  in  one  vol.,  cloth,  45  cents.) 
The  Period  of  the  Judges.      By  the  Rev.  Professor  Patekson,  D.D. 
Outlines  of  Protestant  Missions.    By  John  Robson,  D.D. 
Life  of  the  Apostle  Peter.     By  Rev.  Principal  Salmond,  D.D. 
Outlines    of   Early    Church   History,      By  the  late  Eev.  Henry  Wallis 

Smith.  D.D. 
Life  of  David.     By  the  late  Rev.  Peter  Thomson,  M.A. 
Life  of  Moses.     By  Rev.  Professor  Iverach,  D.D. 

'  Accmatelv  done,  clear,  mature,  and  scholarly.' — Christian. 
Life  of  PavQ.     By  Paton  J.  Gloag,  D.D. 

'Tills  little  lionk  eould  not  weU  be  surpassed.' — Daily  Review. 
Life  and  Reign  of  Solomon.    By  Rev.  Ratner  Wintkrboth am,  M.  A.,  LL.B. 

'Every  teacher  shoulil  liavi- it.'— Rev.  C.  H.  Spuroeon. 
The  History  of  the  Reformation.    By  Rev.  Professor  Witherow. 

'  A  vast  amount  of  information  set  forth  in  a  clear  and  concise  manner.' — United 
Freshjiti  rinn  Magazine. 

The  Kings  of  Israel.    By  Rev.  "W.  Walker,  M.A. 

'  a  in.astcrpieee  of  lucid  condensation.'— C7iris</rtu  Lender. 
The  Kings  of  Judah.     By  Rev.  Professor  Given,  Ph.D. 

'  Admir.ilily  arrauseii ;  the  style  is  sufficiently  simple  and  clear  to  bo  quite  within 
the  compass  of  young  people.' — British  Messenger. 
Joshua  and  the  Conquest.     By  Rev.  Professor  Croskert. 

'  This  carefully  written  manual  will  be  much  appreciated.' — Daily  Review. 

Bible  Words  and  Phrases.    Explained  and  Illustrated.     By  Rev.  Charles 
JticHiK,  M.A.     18rao,  cloth,  40  cents. 
'  Will  be  found  interesting  and  instructive,  and  of  the  greatest  value  to  youiif 
students  and  teachers.  '—Athen(EKm. 
The  Seven  Churches  of  Asia.    By  Deborah  Alcock.    18mo,  cloth,  40  cents. 

Edinburgh  :   T.  &  T.   CLARK,  38  George  Street. 
New  York:   CHARLES   SGRIBNER'S  SONS. 


T.  and  T.  Clark's  PuUications. 


A     NEVy     AND     CHEAPER     EDITION. 

In  crowa  8vo,  Tiiikd  Edition,  price  §1.50, 

BEYO/\/D    THE   STARS; 

OR, 

?^£al)en,  Eta  3:n!)abitant0,  ©ccupations,  nntj  ILtfe. 
By    THOMAS    HAMILTON,    D.D., 

PRESIDENT   OF  QUEEN'S   COLLEGE,    BELFAST  ; 
AUTHOR   OF    '  HISTORY   OF   THE    IRISH   PRESBYTERIAN   CHURCH,'    ETC.    KTC. 

CONTENTS:— Chap.  I. 'Introductory.— II.  A  Settling  of  Localities.— III. 
God.— IV.  The  Cheruhim.— V.  The  Angels.— VI.  The  Saints.- VII. 
Children  in  Ueaven. — VIII.    Do  they  know  one  another  in  Heaven? — 

IX.  Common  Objections  to  the  Doctrine  of  Kecognition  in  Heaven. — 

X.  Between  Death  and  the  Kesurrection. — XI.  How  to  get  there. 

PRESS    NOTICES. 

'  A  good  book  upon  a  grand  subject.  ...  His  writing  is  solid,  he  dissipates 
dreams,  but  he  estalilishes  authorised  hopes.  .  .  .  This  is  a  book  which  a 
believer  will  enjoy  all  the  more  when  he  draws  nearer  to  those  blessed  fields 
"  beyond  the  stars."' — Mr.  Spi-rgeox  in  Sword  and  Troicel. 

'  The  work  of  a  man  of  strong  sense  and  great  power  of  lucid  thought  and 
expression,  one  who  has  deep  springs  of  tenderness.  He  puts  himself  well 
in  touch  with  his  audience,  and  arranges  what  he  has  to  say  in  the  clearest 
manner.' — British  Weekbj. 

'  The  author's  natural  and  sympathetic  eloquence  lends  at  times  a  bright- 
ness, and  again  a  more  pathetic  charm,  to  his  theme.  We  cannot  doubt  that 
his  book  will  comfort  as  well  as  interest  a  wide  circle  of  readers.' — Scottish 
Leader. 

'  Many  a  bruised  heart  will  be  made  joyful  on  reading  this  book.  .  .  .  On 
a  former  occasion,  when  reviewing  a  book  by  the  same  author,  we  congratu- 
lated the  Irish  Presbyterian  Church  on  having  among  her  younger  ministers 
a  %vriter  of  such  promise  and  power.  We  believe  we  may  now  congratulate 
the  wider  Christian  Church  on  a  teacher  and  guide  whose  words  will  fortify 
and  cheer  wherever  the  English  language  is  spoken.' — Presbyterian  Messenger. 

'  There  is  not  a  dry  or  uninteresting  page  in  it,  and  most  of  the  chapters 
are  profoundly  absorbing  in  their  style  and  matter.  It  reads  like  a  novel, 
yet  there  is  nothing  mawkish  or  sentimental  about  it;  but  it  is  reverent, 
devout,  frank,  manly,  and  orthodox  in  its  tone  and  character.' — Christian 
Advocate. 

'  The  tone  is  reverent,  the  style  is  clear,  the  reasoning  is  careful.  Its 
capital  type  will  recommend  it  to  the  weary  sight  of  some  to  whom  the  "  land 
of  distances"  is  no  longer  the  land  that  is  verj'  far  off.' — Church  Bells. 

'  Dr.  Hamilton  endeavours  to  tell  in  plain  and  popular  language  all  that 
the  Bible  reve.als  about  the  other  life.  The  tone  of  the  book  is  admirable  ; 
devout  and  modest  throughout.' — London  Qvxirterly  lievieio. 


CHAKLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS,   New   York. 


Princeton   Theological   Sem;na7,.L'^;3r'" 


■i    1012  01207   2981 


Date  Due 


':*     i 


ff^-l 


'  t  ■  '•  1  -■  '  ■' 


f. 


^  '■  :■?•*-»? 


